Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Orders, 4 June and 30 December 2020).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Conversion Therapy: Support for Victims

Jamie Wallis: What steps the Government are taking to support victims of conversion therapy.

Elizabeth Truss: Conversion therapy is an abhorrent practice that this Government will ban. We are launching a consultation in September to ensure the action we take is informed and effective.

Jamie Wallis: Will my right hon. Friend outline what she is doing to promote LGBT safety not just in the UK but abroad?

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his campaigning work on this issue. I am proud that we have announced the UK’s first ever global LGBT conference, Safe To Be Me. It will take place in June next year, and it will bring the world together to end persecution, violence and discrimination against LGBT people everywhere.

Children from Disadvantaged Backgrounds: Geographic Equality of Opportunity

Peter Aldous: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve geographic equality of opportunity for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Kieran Mullan: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve geographic equality of opportunity for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Ruth Edwards: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to improve geographic equality of opportunity for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Vicky Ford: Every child, no matter what their background, should have access to world-class education that opens up opportunities for their future. Our pupil premium is targeted at schools based on the number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. It has helped to close the attainment gap over the past decade, and it is expected to increase to more than £2.5 billion this year.

Peter Aldous: I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. Early years education plays a key role in supporting children from disadvantaged backgrounds, but there is a concern that the current funding arrangements are skewed against providers operating in deprived areas such as parts of Lowestoft in my constituency. I have corresponded with her on this issue, and we will hopefully meet shortly, but does she agree it is vital that all children, whatever their background, have ready access to high-quality and properly funded early years education? Will the Government take steps to ensure this happens?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. High-quality early years education is important, which is why the Government have invested over £3.5 billion every year for the past three years in supporting education for two, three and four-year-olds. Our recent education recovery announcement included increased investment in early years teaching.
I urge my hon. Friend and, indeed, all hon. Members to encourage families from lower-income backgrounds to take up the Government’s generous offer of 15 hours of free childcare for their two-year-olds. Children who take it up do better at school, and it gives them the vital skills that set them up for life.

Kieran Mullan: In light of the recent Education Committee report, what is the Department doing to support disadvantaged white boys?

Vicky Ford: We are considering the recommendations of the Select Committee on Education very carefully, and all the evidence shows that high-quality teaching is the single most effective way to improve education outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. That is why it is so important that the pupil premium is used to support continuing professional development, as well as academic programmes and pastoral support. It is also why so much of our recovery funding is tilted towards top-quality teaching and tutoring for disadvantaged pupils.

Ruth Edwards: Given the recent Ofsted report, what steps are the Government taking to make sure that all parts of the country have robust safeguarding measures in place so that every girl can fulfil her potential in school without fear of sexual abuse?

Vicky Ford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—sex abuse is not acceptable. The Government are taking action through the child sex abuse strategy and the violence against women and girls strategy, and we have published strengthened guidance for schools on peer-on-peer abuse and updated relationships, sex and health education. In addition, we have asked every local safe- guarding partnership across the country to review how they work to support schools to tackle this issue.

Pregnancy and Maternity Discrimination

Gareth Thomas: What further steps she plans to take to tackle maternity discrimination.

Alison Thewliss: What steps the Government is taking to tackle pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the labour market.

Paul Scully: The Government recognise the importance of tackling pregnancy and maternity discrimination, which is why we will extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work and provide similar protections for those parents taking adoption leave and shared parental leave. We will bring these measures forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Gareth Thomas: As a devastating Equality and Human Rights Commission report highlighted some five years ago, and certainly given the experience of too many of my constituents, discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers is still widespread. When will the Government actually get their act together and bring in the legislation they have promised to stop employers making women redundant during pregnancy, and until at least six months after they have returned from maternity leave?

Paul Scully: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but legislation can only ever be part of the answer, which is why we have committed to bring together key business and family representative groups to tackle the questions on organisational culture and to ensure that women and employers know their rights. We will introduce legislative measures when parliamentary time allows.

Alison Thewliss: EHRC research in 2016 found disturbingly high levels of pregnancy and maternity discrimination in UK workplaces, and the Select Committee on Women and Equalities report highlighted that discriminatory practices towards pregnant women and those on maternity leave during the pandemic should have been
“better anticipated by the government”
and that “preventative actions” should have been taken. So will Ministers tell me what representations they have made to Cabinet colleagues to urgently legislate to extend redundancy protection and finally put an end to this unacceptable discrimination?

Paul Scully: As I said, when parliamentary time allows we will bring legislation forward. I value the hon. Lady’s work and the conversation we had with Pregnant Then Screwed and Maternity Action. We continue to have plans for roundtables to understand the issues better, bringing those two groups together again, along with businesses.

Caroline Nokes: Tragically, maternity discrimination does not just happen in the labour market—it also happens in labour wards. What work is the Minister doing across government to make sure that we drive down the horrific death toll that sees black women four times as likely to die in childbirth than their white counterparts?

Paul Scully: The Minister for Equalities is doing a lot of work in this area, as is our Department of Health and Social Care. We are committed to reducing inequalities in health outcomes, and Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent OBE, the chief midwifery officer, is leading work to understand why mortality rates are high, consider evidence and bring action together, because this is a complex situation. It is not just within maternity; it is far more holistic than that, for instance on whether people are accessing health services in the first place, and with the fact that we had some of the highest rates in the EU of obesity and underweight issues going into maternity and the highest rates of smoking in pregnancy in the EU—indeed, our level is even higher than America’s.

Charlotte Nichols: Research from the TUC has found that one in four pregnant women and new mums experienced unfair treatment or discrimination at work during the pandemic, including being singled out for redundancy or furlough. The imminent tapering off of furlough prompts serious concern about unequal redundancies. Will the Minister follow Labour’s lead and, instead of the Government simply extending their ineffective and complicated laws, make things simpler and more robust for mothers and businesses alike by introducing a German-style ban on making a pregnant woman or new mother redundant from notification of pregnancy to six months after they return to work?

Paul Scully: We believe that extending the MAPLE—Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999—provisions is a better way of doing it that goes with the grain of the tribunal system that we have within this country. That is why, after due consideration, we will be bringing that forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.

Kirsten Oswald: Maternity Action highlights the fact that pregnant women and new mothers cannot devote their energy and finances to pursuing employment tribunal claims. The Minister says he wants to take steps to understand, but I can tell him that the thousands of women who have lost wages, entitlements or their job because of the pandemic, or the more who will unfortunately follow, need effective access now to justice and more time to enforce their rights. The Minister has also says he is committed to action. So what is the hold-up, and what does it say about this Government’s priorities?

Paul Scully: I said earlier that legislation can only ever be part of the answer. There are robust laws at the moment whereby employers have to maintain their duty of care to their workforce, but, as I say, we are taking a different approach rather than bringing in an almost outright ban on making pregnant women and new mothers redundant. We are working with the grain of the existing UK approach, and this will happen soon as parliamentary time allows.

Covid-19: Disabled People on Legacy Benefits

Chris Elmore: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure the adequacy of support for disabled people on legacy benefits during the covid-19 outbreak.

Guy Opperman: The Government are committed to supporting disabled people affected by the covid-19 outbreak, including those who claim legacy benefits. We have delivered an unprecedented package of support, injecting billions into the welfare system, and we continue to monitor the impact on disabled people while ensuring that they are able to access the support that they need.

Chris Elmore: The Minister claims that legacy payments were not increased because disabled people have not faced additional costs during the pandemic, but the Disability Benefits Consortium found that 82% of disabled people have had to spend more money than they normally would during the pandemic. So will he set out for the House what evidence he is basing his assumptions on, because disabled people really do deserve better from this Government?

Guy Opperman: I will get the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to write to the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that we spend £57 billion on benefits to support disabled people and people with health conditions. At the same time, we have reformed employment and support allowance in the light of covid and brought in supportive changes to statutory sick pay, local housing allowance and the Access to Work programme. We continue to support the disabled into work.

Covid-19 Vaccine: Ethnic Minority Communities

Felicity Buchan: What steps the Government are taking to encourage covid-19 vaccine take-up among ethnic minority communities.

Duncan Baker: What recent steps the Government have taken to increase covid-19 vaccine uptake among ethnic minority communities.

Kemi Badenoch: My third quarterly report to the Prime Minister on covid disparities summarises the unprecedented measures taken to promote vaccine uptake among ethnic minorities. This work includes establishing vaccination centres at around 50 different religious venues, with many more acting as pop-up sites, and, more recently, an NHS partnership with the Caribbean & African Health Network, which co-produced a toolkit to increase vaccine confidence and uptake. Thanks to such initiatives we saw an increase in both positive vaccine sentiment and vaccine uptake across all ethnic groups over the last quarter.

Felicity Buchan: On Friday, I was delighted to visit the Al-Manaar mosque in North Kensington, which has administered more than 750 vaccines in pop-up clinics and done vaccine information sessions in English, Arabic and Somali. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an excellent model for encouraging vaccination in our diverse communities?

Kemi Badenoch: I do agree. I thank my hon. Friend for her engagement on this issue and for so effectively representing a very diverse constituency and its complex needs. I pay tribute to religious leaders in Kensington and everywhere else who have played such an important role in encouraging their congregations to be vaccinated.  Initiatives such as the one that my hon. Friend mentioned and the NHS’s plan for Ramadan, which includes the use of twilight jabbing, all help to build trust, increase vaccine confidence and tackle misinformation.

Duncan Baker: From speaking to care home operators in my constituency, I know that there is concern among ethnic minority groups, and particularly women, about their fertility chances being affected by their taking up the vaccine. What reassurances can my hon. Friend give to those ladies that their fertility will not be affected, and that it is entirely safe to take up the vaccine?

Kemi Badenoch: I should start by reiterating that the covid-19 vaccines are safe and there is no evidence that they affect fertility. I recognise that there is much information about the vaccines, as my hon. Friend describes. We are working with Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, the Chief Midwifery Officer in England, and others such as Media Medics, Dr Hazel Wallace and Dr Philippa Kaye, to encourage women to be vaccinated.

Official Development Assistance: Gender Equality

Margaret Ferrier: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential effect of the reduction in official development assistance on gender equality in the developing world.

Wendy Morton: Tackling gender inequality is a core part of the Government’s mission. The integrated review confirms our commitment to tackling the discrimination, violence and inequality that hold women back. Girls’ education is one of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s seven key priorities for ODA spending, and this year we will invest £430 million in girls’ education, helping to achieve the global target to get 40 million girls into education.
We continue to demonstrate the UK’s leadership in reducing gender-based violence. At the recent Generation Equality Forum, we launched the £67.5 million What Works to Prevent Violence: Impact at Scale programme, which is the first global effort systematically to scale up proven violence-prevention approaches worldwide.

Margaret Ferrier: The Gender Equality Advisory Council recently recommended to G7 leaders that they renew their commitment to the 0.7% of GNI target for overseas development assistance and urged them to ring-fence any funding for gender equality projects. Will the Minister assure us that she has assessed the effect on such projects of the recent cut of ODA to 0.5% of GNI, and that she is working with Cabinet colleagues to mitigate that harm?

Wendy Morton: It is important to recognise that the UK will still spend more than £10 billion on ODA in 2021, and we will return to spending 0.7% as soon as the fiscal situation allows. On impacts and equality assessments, I assure the hon. Lady that officials considered any impacts on women and girls, the most marginalised and vulnerable, people with disabilities and people from other protected groups when they developed their advice to Ministers as part of our decision-making process.

Online Abuse and Hate towards Women

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to prevent online abuse and hate towards women by (a) involuntary celibates and (b) others who use hate speech.

Caroline Dinenage: Online abuse and hate towards women is completely unacceptable, and no one should have to experience threats to their safety or abuse online—and even offline. Under our groundbreaking online safety legislation, companies will need to take swift and effective action not only on illegal content, but on legal but harmful content, including abuse and hate speech.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: Involuntary celibate groups—incel groups, as they are known—are increasingly on the rise. This online community understands society to be hierarchised along the lines of sexual attractiveness, and these misogynists blame women for their own lack of status and for forcing them into involuntary celibacy. The harbouring of hate and resentment towards women has manifested itself in a spate of deadly terrorist attacks across the Atlantic, with at least two cases of terrorism here in the UK motivated by incel ideas. Will the Minister commit to having discussions with the Home Secretary to identify, and proscribe where necessary, any forms of this deadly misogynist hate group? Moreover, as most of this hate occurs online, can the Minister tell us what steps the online harms Bill will take to end this online abuse against women, when it will be introduced and when its measures will take effect?

Caroline Dinenage: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she is doing to call out online abuse. She is absolutely right: there is no place for this sort of behaviour online. The online harms Bill will make much clearer the links between what online companies say they do and what they actually do, and women will be better supported to report abuse and should expect to receive appropriate, swift action from the platform. In addition, we have sponsored the Law Commission review on harmful online communications, looking at whether the law needs to be tightened around this issue; that will be reporting back shortly.

Employment Gap: Black, Asian and Ethnic Minority People

Rupa Huq: What steps she is taking with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the employment gap for Black, Asian and ethnic minority people.

Guy Opperman: The Government are committed to supporting people from all backgrounds to move into work. Clearly, £2 billion has been spent on kickstart. There are 13,000 extra job coaches, and the job entry targeted support scheme is also being rolled out. For black, Asian and minority ethnic claimants specifically, we are taking action in 20 local authority areas with high populations of ethnic minority people.

Rupa Huq: With the Office for National Statistics finding that in coronavirus, black and minority ethnic people are less likely to be in management positions,  more likely to be unemployed and more likely to earn less, confirming the Government’s own McGregor [Inaudible.] report, when will the Government implement its 26 recommendations?

Lindsay Hoyle: Minister, make what you can of that.

Guy Opperman: I am happy to write to the hon. Lady through the Department when she gives me a more detailed version. I can just answer that we have 500 kickstart jobs per day, and from 20 locations—from Bradford to Barnet, Glasgow to Leicester, and Manchester to her own Ealing community—jobcentres are specifically helping BAME people.

BAME Students

Toby Perkins: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the comparative performance of BAME students in (a) further and higher education and (b) statutory education.

Michelle Donelan: Equality of opportunity for talented young people across the country is one of the Government’s highest priorities. We are focused on giving people, whatever their background, ethnicity or circumstances, the high-quality education and skills that they deserve to succeed.

Toby Perkins: I am very pleased to hear that, but the reality in terms of the results is that those policies are not working. Most black and ethnic minority groups improve educational attainment relative to white students up to the age of 16, but from the age of 16 there is a drop off in every single group. Whether it be Chinese, who are the highest-performing, or the lowest-performing groups, all of them do less well relative to white students after the age of 16. While I recognise and welcome the Government’s rhetoric, what actual policies are there to do something about that alarming decline?

Michelle Donelan: We recognise that raising educational standards is absolutely key to levelling up opportunity, providing £14 billion in over three years, the biggest uplift to school funding in a decade, investing it in early years education and targeting more than £3 billion in recovery funding. That is why, compared with 2009-10, the proportion achieving A-levels and equivalent improved across all ethnic groups, with the largest improvement in the black and black British ethnic group.

Topical Questions

Tim Loughton: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Elizabeth Truss: As we look to build back better, we want to make it easier for people to work flexibly. Normalising flexible working will help turbocharge opportunities for women, boost employment outside major cities and support a diverse workforce. We have already reconvened the flexible working taskforce, and I am working with ministerial colleagues to champion flexible working practices.

Tim Loughton: May I ask what research the Government have commissioned into the causes of the inequality of educational attainment that disadvantages children living in coastal communities? If they have not, why not, and will they?

Elizabeth Truss: I can tell my hon. Friend that we have commissioned the equality data programme to look specifically at the issue of geographical inequality. We will be announcing the early results of that programme in July, and the Department for Education has already announced an £80 million extension of the opportunity areas programme, including helping coastal towns.

Marsha de Cordova: Disabled people account for two thirds of deaths from covid, and recent research by the BBC showed that 78% of disabled people said that their mental health had got worse during the pandemic and 72% said that their disability had deteriorated. This Government’s failure to comply with their public sector equality duty and undertake equality impact assessments has cost disabled lives. Does the Minister acknowledge the extent of those failures? When will her Government finally bring forward the delayed national strategy for disabled people, and will they finally treat disabled people with dignity and respect and tackle those fatal inequalities?

Guy Opperman: I will get the Disability Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), to write to the hon. Lady with a specific answer to her specific questions, but I can assure her that yes, when the consultation is responded to, it will be in full detail and will address the points that she raised.

Marsha de Cordova: A third of people who use social care are working-aged disabled adults, and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission recently recommended that the Government enshrine in law article 19 of the UN convention on the rights of people with disabilities, to support them to live independently. It has now been over 700 days since the Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and promised that he would fix social care, yet there are still no plans, so what steps is the Minister taking with her colleagues to guarantee that the long-overdue plans for social care will adequately support disabled people to live independently, as recommended by the EHRC?

Guy Opperman: As I believe the hon. Lady is aware, that is a work in progress.

Maria Miller: Nine in 10 school-aged girls are being subjected to indecent exposure on their phones, iPads and computers, but they are told that that is not a crime. Often, the picture is of male genitalia. When will the Government make the non-consensual taking, making and sharing of all intimate sexual images a crime for adults and children? Surely, we do not need yet more review before action is taken.

Caroline Dinenage: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this issue. As part of its review of harmful online  communications, the Law Commission is considering offences around the sharing of intimate images, including things like cyber-flashing, which she mentioned, and is looking to identify whether there are any gaps in existing legislation. It will publish the results of the review very shortly, and we will consider them all very carefully.

Paul Blomfield: After I was told by a local school student of her experience of sexual harassment working in a restaurant, and of the power imbalance that made it difficult to raise that harassment with her employer, I have worked with the Sheffield , the business improvement district, the chamber of commerce, the council, the police and others on a campaign to “Know The Line” for zero tolerance of sexual harassment in the hospitality sector. Will the Secretary of State back our campaign, and will she say when the Government will finally respond to the results of the 2019 consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace?

Elizabeth Truss: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his campaign, and I can assure him that we will be bringing forward our response very shortly.

Theresa Villiers: During the Batley by-election, Labour circulated a leaflet saying:
“Don’t risk a Tory MP who is not on your side”,
featuring a picture of the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi of India. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning that as divisive, and designed to stoke up anti-India and anti-Hindu sentiment?

Elizabeth Truss: First, I want to welcome the new hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) and commend her for her dignity in standing up to intimidation during the campaign. I do agree with my right hon. Friend about the very divisive nature of the leaflet that she talks about. Politicians should not be stoking division: instead, we should be working together to unite and level up our country.

Alan Brown: Relative to the average working wage, the UK state pension is the worst in Europe. We have had the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women scandal, where the Government did not do anything, and now they are going to take £1.2 billion from the mineworkers’ pension scheme. This Government do not solve inequality; they add inequality, do they not?

Guy Opperman: I wholeheartedly reject the comment by the hon. Gentleman. The state pension has gone up dramatically under the triple lock—by £2,000 since 2010 —by the coalition and Conservative Governments. We have a system that is taking forward real change and making a real difference to state pensioners.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

John McNally: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 7 July.

Boris Johnson: Today marks the 16th anniversary of the 7/7 London bombings. We remember the 52 innocent people who lost their lives and those who were injured, and pay tribute to the city’s emergency services for their heroic response.
I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Sislin Fay Allen, who died earlier this week. She was the UK’s first black female police officer, and she served in the Metropolitan police.
I am sure colleagues will also want to join me in wishing the England football team the best of luck for tonight’s semi-final against Denmark.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

John McNally: Prime Minister, we hear a great deal in this place about the rule of law and injustice. Can the Prime Minister tell me what he is going to do about the injustice that my constituents in Falkirk, and indeed families up and down the UK, are facing every day because of the retrospective loan charge, which is fast turning into the next Post Office scandal? The hounding by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—clearly out of control, accountable to no one—has managed to hoodwink and mislead his own Treasury Ministers and now, according to the head of HMRC, the retrospective loan charge appears to be without any legal basis or justification. Therefore, will the Prime Minister accept that this matter needs further and immediate investigation?

Boris Johnson: I am acutely aware, as I think all colleagues are around the House, of the pain suffered by those who entered into loan charge schemes. I think, alas, that they were misguided to do so, but I think that the line taken by the Treasury, I am afraid, is right on this.

John Stevenson: It is very true of the United Kingdom that there is more that unites us than divides us, but improved connectivity is vital to ensuring we remain united. The Government’s recent interim connectivity review has suggested some improvements. If this is really going to happen, then improvements must be made to the A75, the A69 and the extension of the borders railway. Does the Prime Minister support such investment and what is the timescale for such investment?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. I think he should not have too long to wait for the final recommendations from Sir Peter Hendy about the A75 and other great features of Union connectivity that this Government hope to support, but we have already agreed £5 million from the UK and the Scottish Governments to support the extension of the Edinburgh-Tweedbank borders railway to Carlisle.

Keir Starmer: May I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the 7/7 anniversary? I remember where I was on that day and will never forget it, and I am sure that is the same for everybody. We will never forget all those affected, especially the family and friends of all those who died.
May I join the Prime Minister in his comments about Fay Allen as well, and also about football, and wish the very best of luck to the England football team this evening? I am sure the whole country, with the possible exception of the Conservative MP the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson), will be watching this evening and cheering England on.
May I also extend a special welcome to the new Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater)? I hope Conservative Members will forgive me if I turn around to look at my new hon. Friend, as she sits on these Benches beneath the plaque for Jo Cox, her sister? That is a special and emotional moment for all of us on the Labour Benches and I think for everybody across this House. It takes incredible courage and bravery to stand in that constituency and to sit on these Benches beneath that plaque.
We all want our economy to open and to get back to normal; the question is whether we do it in a controlled way or a chaotic way. The Health Secretary told the House yesterday that under the Government’s plan,
“infections could go as high as 100,000 a day.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2021; Vol. 698, c. 755.]
A number of key questions fall from that. First, if infections reach that level of 100,000 per day what does the Prime Minister expect the number of hospitalisations and deaths and the number of people with long covid will be in that eventuality?

Boris Johnson: There are a number of projections, and they are available from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Modelling graphs. It is certainly true that we are seeing a wave of cases because of the delta variant, but scientists are also absolutely clear that we have severed the link between infection and serious disease and death. Currently there are only one thirtieth of the deaths that we were seeing at an equivalent position in previous waves of this pandemic, which has been made possible thanks to the vaccine roll-out, the fastest of any European country, and I think what people would like to hear from the Labour party, because I was not quite clear from that opening question, is whether or not it will support the progress that this country is intending to make on 19 July. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says it is reckless to go ahead; does that mean he is opposing it?

Keir Starmer: We know that the link between infection rates and deaths has been weakened but it hasn’t been broken, and the Prime Minister must, and certainly should, know the answer to the question I asked him. That he will not answer it here in the House hardly inspires confidence in his plan. Let us be clear why infection rates are so high: it is because the Prime Minister let the delta—or we can call it the Johnson—variant into the country. And let us be clear why the number of cases will surge so quickly: it is because he is taking all protections off in one go. That is reckless. The SAGE papers yesterday made it clear that with high infection rates there is a greater chance of new variants emerging, and there will be greater pressure on the  NHS, more people will get long covid and test and trace will be less effective. Knowing all that, is the Prime Minister really comfortable with a plan that means 100,000 people catching this virus every day and everything that that entails?

Boris Johnson: I really think we need to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman what he actually supports. We will continue with a balanced and reasonable approach, and I have given the reasons. This country has rolled out the fastest vaccination programme anywhere in Europe; the vaccines—both of them—provide more than 90% protection against hospitalisation and, by 19 July we will have vaccinated every adult, with all having been offered one vaccination and everybody over 40 having been offered two vaccinations. That is an extraordinary achievement, and that is allowing us to go ahead. Last week, or earlier this week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to support opening up and getting rid of the 1 metre rule—he seemed to support getting back into nightclubs and getting back into pubs without masks—but if he does not support it, perhaps he could clear that up now: is it reckless or not?

Keir Starmer: We should open up in a controlled way, keeping baseline protections such as masks on public transport, improving ventilation, making sure the test and trace system remains effective, and ensuring proper payments for self-isolation. The Prime Minister cannot just wish away the practical problems that 100,000 infections a day are going to cause; he cannot wish them away.
The next obvious one is the huge number of people who will be asked to isolate. If there are 100,000 infections a day, that means hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions—of people are going to be pinged to isolate. The Financial Times estimates this morning that that could be around 2 million people per week. The Daily Mail says 3.5 million people a week. Either way, it is a massive number. It means huge disruption to families and businesses just as the summer holidays begin. We know what the FT thinks; we know what the Mail thinks—we know what their estimates are. Can the Prime Minister tell us: how many people does he expect will be asked to isolate if infection rates continue to rise at this rate?

Boris Johnson: I want to thank everybody who self-isolates. They are doing the right thing. They are a vital part of this country’s protection against the disease. We will be moving away from self-isolation towards testing in the course of the next few weeks. That is the prudent approach, because we will have vaccinated even more people.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He says it is reckless to open up, yet he attacks self-isolation, which is one of the key protections that this country has. Let me ask him again. On Monday, he seemed to say he was in favour of opening up on 19 July; now he is saying it is reckless. Which is it, Mr Speaker?

Lindsay Hoyle: Maybe I can help a little. Just to remind us, it is Prime Minister’s questions. If we want Opposition questions, we will need to change the Standing Orders.

Keir Starmer: The question was simply how many people are going to be asked to self-isolate if there are 100,000 infections a day, and the Prime Minister will not answer it. We know why he will not answer it and  pretends I am asking a different question. He ignored the problems in schools; now there are 700,000 children off per week because he ignored them. Now he is ignoring the next big problem that is heading down the track and is going to affect millions of people who have to self-isolate.
It will not feel like freedom day to those who have to isolate when they have to cancel their holidays and they cannot go to the pub or even to their kids’ sports day, and it will not feel like freedom day, Prime Minister, to the businesses that are already warning of carnage because of the loss of staff and customers. It must be obvious, with case rates that high, that the Prime Minister’s plan risks undermining the track and trace system on which he has spent billions and billions of pounds.
There are already too many stories of people deleting the NHS app. The Prime Minister must have seen those stories. They are doing it because they can see what is coming down the track. Of course we do not support that, but under his plan it is entirely predictable. What is the Prime Minister going to do to stop people deleting the NHS app because they can see precisely what he cannot see, which is that millions of them are going to be pinged this summer to self-isolate?

Boris Johnson: Of course we are going to continue with the programme of self-isolation for as long as that is necessary. I thank all those who are doing it. But of course we are also moving to a system of testing rather than self-isolation, and we can do that because of the massive roll-out of the vaccine programme. It is still not clear—I think this is about the fourth or fifth time, Mr Speaker—whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is actually in favour of this country moving forward to step 4 on the basis of the massive roll-out of vaccines. This is unlike the law, where you can attack from lots of different positions at once. To oppose, you must have a credible and clear alternative, and I simply do not hear one. Is he in favour of us moving forward—yes or no? It is completely impossible to tell.

Lindsay Hoyle: Once again, it is Prime Minister’s questions and the Prime Minister answers questions.

Keir Starmer: If the Prime Minister stopped mumbling and listened, he would have heard the answer the first time. We want to open in a controlled way and keep baseline protections that can keep down infections, such as mandatory face masks on public transport. We know that that will protect people, reduce the speed of the virus and the spread of the virus, and it will not harm the economy. It is common sense. Why can the Prime Minister not see that?

Boris Johnson: Of course we can see that it is common sense for people in confined spaces to wear a face mask out of respect and courtesy to others, such as on the tube, but what we are doing is cautiously, prudently moving from legal diktat to allowing people to take personal responsibility for their actions. That is the right way forward. I must say that if that is really the only difference between us, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman supports absolutely everything else—opening pubs, opening nightclubs, getting rid of the 1 metre rule, getting people back to work—and it is all about the difference between making face masks mandatory or advisory on the tube, then that is good news, but I would like to hear him clarify that.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister agrees it is common sense because it protects the public, but he will not make it mandatory—it is ridiculous. It is clear what this is all about: he has lost a Health Secretary, he has lost a by-election and he is getting flak from his own MPs, so he is doing what he always does—crashing over to the other side of the aisle, chasing headlines and coming up with a plan that has not been thought through. We all want restrictions lifted. We want our economy open. We want to get back to normal. But we have been here too many times before. Is it not the case that, once again, instead of a careful, controlled approach, we are heading for a summer of chaos and confusion?

Boris Johnson: No, is the answer to that. Of course these are difficult decisions. They need to be taken in a balanced way, and that is what we are doing. Throughout the pandemic, to do all these things, frankly, takes a great deal of drive, and it takes a great deal of leadership to get things done. If we followed the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s advice, we would still be in the European Medicines Agency and we would never have rolled out the vaccines as fast. If we followed his advice, we would never have got schools open again, with all the damage to kids’ education. Frankly, if we had listened to him, we would not now be proceeding cautiously, pragmatically, sensibly to reopen our society and our economy, and giving people back the chance to enjoy the freedoms they love. We are getting on with taking the tough decisions to take this country forward. We vaccinate, they vacillate. We inoculate, while they are invertebrate.

Andy Carter: Last week I visited Penketh South Community Primary School in Warrington to talk to year 6 children about how we can generate cleaner energy in the future. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, as well as backing electric vehicle production in the north-west, there is a great opportunity to shift towards low-carbon hydrogen by providing support for projects such as HyNet North West, which by 2030 will secure thousands of green jobs in the north-west, as well as cutting emissions to the same level as taking 4 million cars off the roads?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I believe that the north-west, in addition to the rest of the country, will be a world leader in hydrogen technology. The HyNet project is an excellent example. We have already put £45 million into supporting the HyNet project, kickstarting our hydrogen capture and storage, and I thank my hon. Friend for his support.

Ian Blackford: Can I wish England all the best for the football match tonight against Denmark? I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the tragedy of the 7/7 bombing, which we all remember so vividly. Also, yesterday was the 33rd anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster, where 167 people cruelly lost their lives. Our thoughts are very much with friends and family who are still grieving over the terrors of that event. Finally, before I move on, this is also Srebrenica Memorial Week. We should remember those who have suffered genocide, whether in Bosnia, the holocaust, Rwanda or in many other places. Perhaps the Prime Minister will meet me to discuss how we can help the Srebrenica charity here in the UK.
This week, the Tory Government introduced their so-called electoral integrity Bill. In reality, the Bill is designed to do anything but increase the integrity of our elections. It is a solution in desperate search of a problem that simply does not exist. What the Bill will do is to impose, for the first time, Trumpian voter ID laws in the UK. The Electoral Reform Society says it could lead to voter
“disenfranchisement on an industrial scale”,
disenfranchising people from working-class communities, black and minority ethnic communities, and others already marginalised in society, creating barriers to vote. Prime Minister, why are the Tory Government trying to rob people of their democratic right to vote?

Boris Johnson: What we are trying to protect is the democratic right of people to have a one person, one vote system. I am afraid that I have personal experience and remember vividly what used to go on in Tower Hamlets, and it is important that we move to some sort of voter ID. Plenty of other countries have it. It is eminently sensible, and I think people will be reassured that their votes matter. That is what this Bill is about.

Ian Blackford: Goodness gracious, Prime Minister, come on! There were 34 allegations of impersonation in 2019. This is a problem that does not exist. It is a British Prime Minister seeking to make it harder to vote because it is easier for the Government to get re-elected if they can choose the voters rather than letting the voters choose their Government. Three and a half million people in the United Kingdom do not have a form of photo ID, and 11 million people do not have a passport or driver’s licence. Those millions of people will be directly impacted by seeing their right to vote curtailed. It is not just the Opposition saying that. Members of the Prime Minister’s own party have called his plans
“an illogical and illiberal solution to a non-existent problem”.
Will he withdraw these vote-rigging proposals immediately or continue down the path of being a tinpot dictator?

Boris Johnson: The right hon. Member is making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill, if I may I respectfully suggest. Councils will be under an obligation to provide free photo ID to anybody who wants it, and I do think it reasonable to protect the public in our elections from the idea of voter fraud. Nobody wants to see it. By the way, I do not think that elections in this country should be in any way clouded or contaminated by the suspicion of voter fraud. That is what we are trying to prevent.

Sheryll Murray: I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend in Cornwall for the very successful G7 summit. While he did not manage to get to South East Cornwall, I assure him that Looe is a very beautiful coastal town. The problem is Looe floods—regularly. Will he speak to Government Departments to get this sorted?

Boris Johnson: Through my hon. Friend, I thank again the people of South East Cornwall and everywhere in Cornwall. The G7 had wonderful hospitality. I assure her that I am aware of the problem of flooding in Looe. I can tell her that my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary has met Cornwall Council to discuss the matter, and we will do everything we can to sort it out.

Neale Hanvey: On behalf of the Alba party, I add my voice to the comments about 7/7. On the morning of 7/7, I was in a meeting at University College London Hospital A&E as the information started coming through, and I pay tribute to every single one of the frontline staff I worked alongside on that day. It was a long shift and it was a long walk home that evening.
The Prime Minister talks about vaccines. Accurate surveillance is also really important—it is equally important. On 15 March, the Department of Health of Social Care Minister Lord Bethell said on Twitter that Omega Diagnostics and Mologic were in line for an order of 2 million lateral flow devices per week by the end of May, and promised jobs and security. Will the Prime Minister explain why his Government are undermining superior domestic diagnostics tests while propping up discredited Chinese imports to the tune of £3 billion?

Boris Johnson: I do not think that is an entirely fair characterisation of what the Government are doing. On the contrary, we have worked night and day to build up our domestic lateral flow capacity and continue to do so.

Tim Loughton: Last week President Xi cheerily threatened that any foreigners attempting to influence China
“will have their heads bashed…against the Great Wall of steel”.
Of course, he is still in denial about human rights violations and the genocides in Xinjiang and Tibet, as recognised by this House, as a result of which five of us remain sanctioned. Will the Prime Minister therefore support our motion, to be debated in the House next Thursday, calling for a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 winter Olympics—incredibly awarded to Beijing—until and unless this dangerous regime abides by basic international standards of decency?

Boris Johnson: This country has led the world in condemning human rights abuses in Xinjiang, in putting sanctions on those responsible and in holding companies to account that import goods made with forced labour in Xinjiang. I will certainly consider the proposals debated, but I must say that I am instinctively, and always have been, against sporting boycotts.

Wendy Chamberlain: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and others on the anniversaries being marked today?
This Sunday, 11 July, marks two years since the Government committed to reforming a cruel aspect of the welfare system that forces terminally ill people to prove that they have six months or less to live before they are granted fast access to benefits. The Motor Neurone Disease Association and Marie Curie estimate that, in that time, 7,000 people have died waiting for a decision on their benefits claim. With the pandemic, and with the NHS managing it and the backlog of diseases, the situation will become only more acute. When will the Government publish their review and finally scrap the six-month rule, as they have committed to do so?

Boris Johnson: I am aware of the issue that the hon. Lady has raised. To the best of my knowledge, we are making that change, but I will write to her as soon as I have that information.

David Jones: While the extension of the grace period for the supply of chilled meat from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is welcome, Lord Frost is entirely right to say that it amounts in truth to no more than a temporary “sticking plaster”, so can my right hon. Friend please confirm that, unless the European Union adopts a more proportionate approach to the application of the Northern Ireland protocol, this country will do whatever is necessary, legislative or otherwise, to fix the problem permanently?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is, sadly, completely right in his analysis. There remain very serious problems in what I believe is the misapplication—the excessively legally purist application—of that protocol. What we are hoping for is some progress from the European Commission—some repairs that I think that they should make to the way this is working—but to echo what he has said, we certainly rule nothing out in our approach.

Angela Crawley: One in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. Does the Prime Minister agree that parents’ grief for this profound loss is not an illness and therefore that parents should receive formal miscarriage leave rather than resorting to sick pay or unpaid leave if their miscarriage occurs before 24 weeks? Will he support my private Member’s Bill and introduce paid miscarriage leave for parents?

Boris Johnson: I sympathise deeply with anybody who has suffered the loss of a baby by miscarriage, of course. What I can tell the hon. Lady is that we did introduce, in 2020, paid parental bereavement leave. That entitles those who lose a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy to some payment, but, of course, nothing I can say, and no payment we could make, would be any consolation to those who experience a miscarriage in that way.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Serious Fraud Office achieved a rare success in Southwark Crown court in April with the successful prosecution of GPT Special Project Management Ltd, which resulted in £28 million of penalties for corruption. The key whistleblower in this case was my constituent Ian Foxley, without whom the prosecution would never have happened, yet he has been totally hung out to dry by the Serious Fraud Office, despite 10 years of financial devastation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, unless we properly compensate whistleblowers, they simply will not come forward, and will he consider making a payment out of the £28 million received by Her Majesty’s Treasury to compensate him for his losses?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question. I want to thank Mr Foxley for his whistleblowing, because he has seen justice done. The trouble is that we do not normally compensate whistle- blowers in the way that my hon. Friend recommends, but I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has offered to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy: On Monday, we celebrated the 73rd birthday of the NHS—one of the very best things about our country. Many Opposition Members, and our constituents, remain committed to protecting the fundamental right to universal healthcare, free at the point of delivery, but this Government remain a constant threat to our public health service, with no staff pay rise, a 25% cut in the number of mental health beds, and the widespread sell-off of GP practices, such as the Edith Cavell Surgery in my constituency to American private insurance giant Centene. There is also the Health and Care Bill, which will only open the doors wider for privatisation. Why is the Prime Minister continuing to eviscerate our most essential public services, and why will he not listen to the thousands of essential workers who demonstrated on Saturday to end NHS privatisation, chronic underfunding and understaffing, and to keep the NHS public?

Boris Johnson: With great respect to the hon. Lady, I do not think that I have ever heard a question that was more inversely related to reality. This is a Government that from the beginning invested the biggest amount in the NHS for a generation. Then, in the last year, we put another £92 billion into frontline care. We have increased nurses’ starting pay by 12.8% over the last three years. Above all, not only are we building 48 more hospitals, but there are another 59,000 people working in the NHS this year than there were this time last year. This is a Government who are putting our NHS first.

Kate Griffiths: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the fantastic news of Nissan’s investment in an electric battery gigafactory in Sunderland, but does the Prime Minister agree that batteries are only part of the solution in pursuit of net zero by 2050, and that zero-carbon hydrogen combustion engines, such as those recently developed by Midlands-based JCB, have an important role to play in our country’s decarbonisation plans?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. The investments that we have seen in just the last week or so—Nissan’s investment in a gigafactory in Sunderland and what Stellantis is doing at Ellesmere Port—are tremendously exciting for battery-powered vehicles. It is fantastic, but we must not forget hydrogen. As I said in an earlier answer, we want this country to be a world leader in hydrogen technology as well.

Bim Afolami: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the fatal and serious road accidents that have taken place on St Albans Road and Redbourn Road in my constituency. Will he advise the House on what more the Government are doing to improve road safety, not just in the case of fatal accidents but where there are serious accidents or near misses, because this is an issue that is of growing concern to many of my constituents and, I believe, to many across the country?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right to raise this. Although the number of those who have been killed or seriously injured on the roads has been coming down over a long period, it is vital that we invest in this area. We have put another £100 million through the safer roads fund to invest in 50 of the most dangerous  stretches on A roads. I also draw his attention to the THINK! campaign, which can play a huge role in reducing deaths and serious injuries on our roads.

Matthew Pennycook: To their bitter disappointment, and despite the assurances given during the passage of the Fire Safety Act 2021 that it would do so, the Building Safety Bill, published on Monday, does little to help the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders who right now face financial ruin as a result of the building safety crisis. My question to the Prime Minister is a simple one: why are his Government seemingly intent on failing to honour the commitments given to those leaseholders, and to Members of this House, by refusing to legislate to fully protect all the blameless victims of this scandal?

Boris Johnson: That is not accurate. We are continuing to support all those who have to remediate their buildings. I remind Members that the £5 billion that we have provided is five times what Labour offered for support in their last manifesto. We will ensure that all the leaseholders—the people who have suffered from the consequences of the Grenfell conflagration—get the advice and support that they need.

Jeremy Wright: My right hon. Friend will recognise the huge service done by independent hospices to those at the end of their lives, to their families and to the NHS, because those people would be likely to otherwise be in hospital. He will also understand the huge impact that the covid pandemic has had on the fundraising capacity of those hospice charities, so may I ask him to consider carefully and personally the case that is being made by independent hospices for greater Government support for their clinical costs—costs which, if they were no longer there, would undoubtedly be borne by the taxpayer and by the hard- pressed NHS?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. and learned Friend is totally right to draw attention to the incredible selfless work of hospices up and down the country. Charitable hospices receive £350 million of Government funding annually, but he is also right to draw attention to the difficulties they have had in fundraising this year and over the pandemic. That is why they have received an additional £257 million in national grant funding arrangements.

Imran Hussain: In January, the Prime Minister promised me that he would listen to the calls of those that the Government had excluded from vital support to protect their jobs, businesses and incomes during the coronavirus pandemic, yet over the last six months many of my constituents have still been coming to tell me that they have been shut off and ignored, and millions across the country continue to be excluded. I have to ask the Prime Minister: why did he give those who have been excluded false hope instead of the support they desperately needed?

Boris Johnson: Of course I know how tough it has been for millions of people up and down the country and for business. That is why this Government put in an extraordinary £407 billion to support jobs and livelihoods across the country throughout the pandemic. The single most important thing we can do now for the individuals and families that the hon. Gentleman represents and is  rightly talking about today is to help our country to get back on its feet by cautiously opening up in the way that we are on 19 July, if we can take that step, which I very much hope we will. I hope that it may command the support, if not of the Leader of the Opposition, then at least of the hon. Gentleman.

Caroline Nokes: The River Test is one of the finest chalk streams in the world, but since May, diesel has been spilling into the river. What matters most is that the flow is stopped and that there is an effective clean-up, but there are many agencies involved, which has made a co-ordinated response challenging. Please will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Environment Agency, Natural England, Southern Water, local authorities and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all involved in solving this environmental catastrophe together?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is completely right. All those bodies are involved, but the lead agency is the Environment Agency, and I know that it is in touch with her. I must say that I have a very high regard for the agency and for its work.

Matt Western: I am not sure that the Prime Minister actually welcomed my hon. Friend the new Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater), but perhaps he will want to correct the record after this.
They say that where there’s a will there’s a way, and the public will clearly welcome the Government’s move to introduce emergency legislation tomorrow for pubs and bars to be able to stay open later on Sundays. However, the public will wonder why the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) will be allowed to return to this House tomorrow and not be subject to a recall, despite there being a serious case of sexual harassment. The public do not understand why there should be one rule for Conservative MPs and another for the rest of us. Will the Prime Minister therefore allow time tomorrow for a motion to close this loophole and make the hon. Member for Delyn the subject of a recall?

Boris Johnson: First of all, the gentleman in question’s sanction has come to an end. Secondly, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) is in error: the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) is not a Conservative MP.

David Davis: This year thousands of children will die because of the Government’s dramatic cuts in international aid. Top lawyers in the country advise us that this policy is unlawful, and it has never been presented to this House for approval. When the Prime Minister was previously asked about this by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), he suggested that the estimates vote would be the appropriate vote, but that does not allow us to increase the amount of spending   on this aid. I ask the Prime Minister again: when are we going to get a binding vote on the Government’s aid policy?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I am assured by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House was given a chance to vote on this matter in the estimates votes, but it mysteriously chose not to.

Tan Dhesi: When my grandmother, whom I loved dearly, was lying on her hospital deathbed, none of us was allowed to be there to comfort her in her final moments. I could not even carry her coffin on my shoulders. I also had to endure the agony of watching alone, online, the funeral of my fun-loving uncle, and we were not there to comfort my brother-in-law’s father, who had somehow contracted covid in a Slough care home during his final moments—all this because we followed Government guidance.
After we had experienced such painful personal sacrifices, like many others, imagine our collective disgust when, to curry favour with a Prime Minister’s chief adviser, we saw sycophantic, spineless, hypocritical Government Ministers lining up to defend the indefensible, saying, “It’s time to move on.” Some even had the gall to tell us that they, too, go for a long drive when they need to get their eyesight tested. What an absolute disgrace! They should all be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
When is the Prime Minister finally going to apologise to the nation for not mustering the courage and integrity to do the honourable thing and sack his chief adviser, who so shamelessly flouted his own Government guidance? He could have regained that lost public trust and confidence, and demonstrated that it was not one rule for him and his elite chums and another for the rest of us plebs.

Lindsay Hoyle: This is a very emotional issue.

Boris Johnson: Perhaps the best thing I can say is how deeply I, the Government and everybody sympathise with those who have gone through the suffering described by the hon. Gentleman. No one who has not been through something like that can imagine what it must feel like to be deprived of the ability to mourn properly and to hold the hands of a loved one in their last moments in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes. I know how much sympathy there will be with him.
I take the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of the Government and everything we have done most sincerely, but all I can say is that we have tried throughout this pandemic to minimise human suffering and to minimise loss of life. He asks me to apologise and, as I have said before, I do: I apologise for the suffering that the people of this country have endured. All I can say is that nothing that I can say or do can take back the lost lives and the lost time spent with loved ones that he describes. I am deeply, deeply sorry for that.

Points of Order

Sammy Wilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 23 June, my colleague my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) asked the Prime Minister whether article 6 of the Act of Union (Ireland) 1800 had been impliedly repealed when the Northern Ireland protocol was approved by the House of Commons. The Prime Minister answered emphatically no.
Last Thursday, the High Court, responding to a case made by the Government’s lawyers, said that the Northern Ireland protocol was not in conflict with the 1800 Act because article 6, which guaranteed equal trade across the United Kingdom, had been impliedly repealed when the withdrawal Act was passed through the House of Commons. Mr Justice Colton agreed that indeed article 6 had been overridden by the passing of the withdrawal Acts here in the House of Commons.
Here is the point, Mr Speaker: the Government’s case was approved, presented and argued before the Prime Minister gave the answer to my right hon. Friend in the House of Commons. That answer therefore must have been misleading to the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I suggest “inadvertently”.

Sammy Wilson: Inadvertently misleading to the House. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister can be called to apologise for inadvertently misleading the House. What steps does he intend to take to undo the damage that the change to the Act of Union has caused constitutionally and economically to Northern Ireland?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me notice of this point of order. He raises the issue of legal interpretation, which is not a matter for the Chair. He will know, too, that the Speaker is not responsible for Ministers’ answers. The Prime Minister and the Minister will have heard the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. If the Prime Minister believes his answer requires a correction, there are processes by which one can make that happen, although he may take a different   view from the right hon. Member about the facts of the case. In any event, the right hon. Member has put his point on the record, and I am sure he will find other ways of pursuing it. I do not think this is the end of the matter for now, but it is just for this moment.
I am now suspending the House for three minutes in order for the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Sitting suspended.
On resuming—

Gareth Thomas: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have received a number of representations from those seeking to find work on sites such as LinkedIn about not being able to see even a minimum salary that would be available to them were they to secure the position. The Employment Bill is obviously the right piece of legislation to raise these issues with Ministers, but as yet there appears to be no sign of it appearing. I wonder whether you have heard any evidence as to when it might emerge.

Lindsay Hoyle: As the hon. Gentleman can probably guess, I have not been made aware of that. It is on the record, and I am sure the Government have picked up on that point. Hopefully they will be in touch.

Bill Presented

Israel Arms Trade (Prohibition)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Richard Burgon, supported by Caroline Lucas, Liz Saville Roberts and Tommy Sheppard, presented a Bill to prohibit the sale of arms to Israel and the purchase of arms from Israel; to make associated provision about an inquiry in relation to Israel into the end use of arms sold from the UK or authorised for sale by the UK Government; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 10 September, and to be printed (Bill 144).

Dogs (DNA Databases)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Andrew Griffith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require dog keepers to register a dog’s DNA on a database; to make provision about such databases and about the information held on them; and for connected purposes.
There are not many days when we in this House can bring joy to so many families and individuals, fight crime, improve biosecurity, help the UK’s leadership in animal genomics and repay the loyalty of the nation’s faithful four-legged friends. This is one such day, and I believe we can do so united on both sides of the House.
One in three households across the UK is home to a furry four-legged canine friend. This Bill seeks to create a national register of doggy DNA as a more secure, more humane and better long-term alternative to microchipping. I am grateful for the feedback from the many parties I consulted in developing this Bill, including dog shelters, police forces, vets, academics, members of the public and genomic industry professionals. I am also grateful for the support of the RSPCA, the largest and oldest animal welfare organisation in the world.
Under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, all dogs must already be microchipped. If there is a canine libertarian movement, that pass has already been sold. Although microchips have been a big step forward and have produced many successes in reuniting dogs with their loving owners, they are not infallible. Some dogs have health conditions making them unable to be microchipped. Microchips can be inserted incorrectly, causing suffering, or sometimes migrate to other parts of the body. Increasingly, they can be found and cut out by unscrupulous thieves.
Registration itself is fragmented, with many databases offered by competing suppliers, each of which hold data in a variety of formats. Unlike microchipping, a simple DNA swab inside a dog’s mouth is non-invasive. It is a modern solution whose time has come.
There is a particular problem right now of dog theft, which reportedly increased by 250% in 2020, but a database, once set up, will have a number of additional benefits and solutions for policy questions related to dog welfare and ownership. In March, my colleague Katy Bourne, police and crime commissioner for Sussex, ran a survey that received almost 125,000 responses, revealing fear of dog theft was a “serious problem”.
Earlier this year Gloucestershire constabulary gave us a proof of concept, having set up its own opt-in DNA register. I am grateful to Gloucestershire’s adviser, Kim Mowday, who examined everything from nose prints to paw prints before concluding that DNA was the most robust and reliable identifier. I know from farmers in my constituency, that a register would protect not just dogs but other animals, too. SheepWatch UK estimates that, in 2016 alone, over 15,000 farm animals were killed by out-of-control dogs.
A register would also improve our city parks and public spaces by tackling dog fouling, which has been linked to toxocariasis, a parasite that is a particular risk  to the youngest children. Trials by Barking and Dagenham Council showed that DNA testing drove down fouling by over 60% once owners realised that they could or would be traced. A DNA database would also have immense research value, putting Britain at the cutting edge, and allowing for canine genetic diseases to be tracked and traced. In 2018, whole genome sequencing allowed researchers in Helsinki to identify a gene that causes congenital eye disease in dogs, and such a wide and deep data pool would only generate more advances in veterinary science.
I come to the second major function of the Bill: it seeks to unify the existing microchip registers and merge them into a nationally standardised format. Several organisations I consulted when developing this Bill already advocate for that, including Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I draw the House’s attention to the 13 June 2013 debate on compulsory microchipping, in which the then Minister said:
“We are working with database operators and the microchip manufacturers and implanters to address standards and ensure quality and consistency”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 156WH.]
He was thereby acknowledging the problem that, eight years on, has still sadly not been solved. The Bill would simplify that by providing a single, consistent point of contact for updates, in much the same way as drivers know they must inform the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency when they change vehicle. The RSPCA has welcomed the Bill, which it says will
“streamline the process of registering dogs, making this easier for owners and authorities and vets to get the information they need.”
Nor is the cost of DNA tests a meaningful objection. The Bill does not seek to bring this in overnight, and would instead see a phased introduction over a decade. That would allow for the expanding provision of DNA testing to drive down cost. The cost of genome sequencing has fallen so rapidly that it has outpaced Moore’s law. Today, a whole human genome can be sequenced for less than $300, and this is expected to fall further. A dog DNA test today can cost as little as £40, depending on the purpose. Given that pet testing is a completely new market and is growing rapidly, we can be sure the price will drop much further over the next decade. The original debates about microchipping featured concerns about the cost burden to owners of making microchipping compulsory. Despite the legal requirement having been in place for five years, there has been no collapse in demand for pet dogs—quite the opposite. Dog ownership has soared from 7.8 million in the year of that debate to more than 10 million last year. The 10-year phasing in would also allow the existing microchip databases to regularise their formatting ahead of unification and to avoid existing owners being penalised.
This will be an effective solution for a number of dog-related problems. Although the list I have given today, including pet theft, puppy farms, dog fouling, wildlife protection, livestock worrying and veterinary research, is not exhaustive—although it sounds it—once the basic framework is set up, any number of other applications can follow. It is clear that a DNA-based approach will become the standard sooner or later. It is surely easier to start now, sorting the scaling problems earlier, so that we make this a long-term fix.
Let me conclude by addressing my final remarks to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). This is a change that is coming. The only question is when and how. We can be sure that the departmental brief written for her will raise no end of objections as to why this is the wrong change at the wrong time. Although our civil service is a fine machine in many respects, the status quo has no better or more skilled advocate for inertia and inactivity. This is that rare thing, a Bill for which there is political consensus and that requires no Treasury funding. So I urge her, for the sake of pet owners, and for the much-loved dogs that will be stolen today, tomorrow and the next day, let us fast forward to the point where the Government agree to pick up this Bill and legislate. Please go back to the Department, challenge the advice and seek action this day on this very important issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Andrew Griffith, Virginia Crosbie, Siobhan Baillie, James Sunderland, Sir David Amess, Sir Roger Gale, Mr Robert Goodwill, Robert Halfon, Jane Hunt, Dr Julian Lewis, Andrew Selous and Suzanne Webb present the Bill.
Andrew Griffith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March 2022, and to be printed (Bill 145).

Opposition Day - [4th Allotted Day]Opposition Day

Covid-19: Contracts and Public Inquiry

Ian Blackford: I beg to move,
That this House believes the Government has failed to give full details of the process behind the issuing of emergency covid-19 contracts; and therefore calls on the Government immediately to commence the covid-19 public inquiry, announced by the Prime Minister on 12 May 2021.
There have been many instances during this covid-19 pandemic when we have seen the very best in our society, from our frontline workers keeping food on supermarket shelves, to our extraordinary scientific community who have produced life-saving vaccines, to, of course, our NHS heroes who have been so deserving of the George Cross. The pandemic has also led to opportunism, greed, and covid profits being put above accountability. This Tory Government are guilty of funnelling covid cash from the frontline into the pockets of their rich friends. We are talking about endemic cronyism during a global pandemic, the misuse of funds, and covid profiteers raking in billions of pounds for services that have often been too substandard or irrelevant in the fight against the virus. Yes, Mr Speaker, it is billions of pounds that we are talking about—billions of pounds while millions in our society have been excluded from any help from the Government.
Today, the SNP is saying enough, no more dodgy dealings, no more undeclared meetings, and no more billion-pound contracts to friends. The Prime Minister promised an inquiry into the UK Government’s handling of the pandemic; it must start right now.

James Cartlidge: I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I understand why he is bringing this debate forward, but he must realise that we have just had a week where his own country’s newspapers are full of headlines saying that Scotland is becoming the covid capital of Europe. Who is responsible for that?

Ian Blackford: We really should not be playing political football—[Laughter.] I have to say, Mr Speaker, that says it all. [Laughter.] They should just keep going, because, friends, we are talking about people who are getting a serious illness, we are talking about people who are getting long covid, we are talking about people who are going on ventilators, we are talking about people who are losing their lives, and that is the behaviour that we get from the Conservatives. They ought to be utterly, utterly ashamed of themselves.
When it comes to the covid numbers in Scotland, let me give those Members a reality check. The reason that covid numbers are rising so dramatically right across the United Kingdom—and we have seen the projections this morning of what is going to happen here over the coming weeks—is largely down to what has happened with the delta variant. My Government in Edinburgh told the Government in London that we had to lock the door on the delta variant. It is the UK Government  who have been asleep at the wheel, so we take no lectures about our responsibilities when there is a Prime Minister who talks about letting the bodies pile high. We know where the blame lies and the blame lies at the door of No.10 Downing Street.

James Cartlidge: rose—

Ian Blackford: Last week, I raised an urgent question in this House on the misuse of covid funds—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us just calm down. Two of you cannot be standing at the same time. If the hon. Gentleman wants the Member to give way, he will give way. If the hon. Gentleman really felt that it was so bad, he could have made a point of order. The fact is that we need to calm it down. We need to get on with this debate, as it is important for all. People are watching it and we need to be able to hear all sides, and I am struggling at times. With so few Members here, it is amazing how much noise is being generated; I see Mr Shelbrooke is back in town. Carry on, Ian Blackford.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. These are important matters and we need to be able to deal with them respectfully.
Last week, I asked an urgent question in this House regarding the misuse of covid funds for political campaigning. The Secretary of State ordered the use of a £560,000 emergency covid contract to conduct constitutional campaigning on the Union. That was taxpayers’ funds, which were earmarked for the NHS to protect supplies of personal protective equipment but were instead used to order political polling. [Interruption.] I can hear an hon. Friend asking whether they can do that; no, it is not permissible to engage in such behaviour. We are talking about taxpayers’ funds that were earmarked for the NHS to order PPE but were instead used to order political polling.
At Prime Minister’s questions on the Wednesday prior to my urgent question, the Prime Minister told me that he was unaware of the contracts. The accusation of misusing covid contracts was not media speculation; nor was it a political accusation: it was a plain fact. It came directly from the official evidence published in the High Court judgment on the Good Law Project v. the Minister for the Cabinet Office, which revealed that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster instructed—instructed—officials to commission research on
“attitudes to the UK Union”
using the emergency contract given to Public First for pandemic research. As I have stated, that is a fact admitted in a court of law, but in this very Chamber last week the Government sought to deny that any such spending took place and said that the Minister had no part to play in it. These are serious matters and we need honesty and transparency from the Government. Perhaps today the Minister on the Front Bench—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—could put the record straight on the fact that it was admitted in court that that had happened.
We are dealing with a Government acting in a sleekit manner and in a covert way, using covid funds for research on attitudes to the Union without authority. For the UK Government to funnel funds earmarked for emergency covid spending into party political research  is jaw-dropping and morally reprehensible. Can we imagine the reaction if the Scottish Government had used emergency covid funds to conduct polling on independence? There would have been justifiable outrage from Government Members.
In another court case, the failure to publish details of contracts within the required 30 days led the judge to rule that the then Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), had acted unlawfully. It took the Government until last month to publish the details of 40 PPE contracts worth £4.2 billion, despite the contracts having been awarded a year before and despite the Government claiming months earlier that all PPE contracts had already been published. In documents seen by the BBC, Government lawyers admitted in February that 100 contracts for suppliers and services relating to covid-19, signed before October last year, had yet to be published. Yet three days earlier, the Prime Minister told MPs that the contracts were
“on the record for everybody to see.”—[Official Report, 22 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 638.]
Was this yet another example of the Prime Minister being unaware of the situation that his Government had found themselves in? The alternative is—and can only be—that the Prime Minister willingly misled the House and the public. There is no other conclusion that can be drawn—

Hon. Members:: Withdraw!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I went through this earlier with other Members. “Inadvertently”—we do not use the direct accusation that somebody misled the House, but “inadvertently” I will accept. We have to use the right language, which is the language that we expect, and I am sure that the leader of the SNP would not want to break with the good manners of this House.

Ian Blackford: Of course I would not wish to do so, Mr Speaker, but I am simply laying out the facts of the matter.

Lindsay Hoyle: So we can use “inadvertently”.

Ian Blackford: I will be generous to colleagues and the Prime Minister and for the purposes of this place I will respectfully do so.
The court cases highlighted that the covid contracts were not published on time, and poor records left big unknowns, such as why some companies won multi-million-pound contracts and others did not. Clarity on the latter has been provided through the revelation that civil servants were requested to triage contract proposals into high-priority lanes. That means that proposals from a supplier recommended by Ministers, Government officials, or MPs and Members of the House of Lords were given preferential treatment. That was crucial to the success of those seeking procurement deals: a National Audit Office report found that up to July 2020, one in 10 suppliers that had been put in the high-priority lane were awarded a contract, while the figure was less than one in 100 for those outside that lane. It is not what you know, or what you can provide: it is who you know in Government. These priority lanes created a tale of friends and family fortunes.

Jonathan Edwards: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and for outlining his case forensically.  What does this so-called VIP lane indicate about the priorities of the British Government, when we compare it with the fact that when the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the Northern Irish Government together asked for extra borrowing capacity to deal with the covid crisis, they were turned down? What does that say about the priorities of the British Government, and—more to the point, perhaps—what does it say about the nature of the relationships among Governments within the British state?

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is quite correct. There have been a number of occasions on which all the devolved Administrations have sought support from the UK Government for borrowing, and have been frustrated in that, but for friends of the UK Government, it is a case of “Come in, there are contracts to be had.”
Let me give a few examples. There was the neighbour and local pub landlord of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), who supplied tens of millions of vials for covid-19 tests despite not having had any previous experience of providing medical supplies: off the street, no experience whatsoever, but he was a friend of the Government. There was the small Stroud-based company which, despite making a loss in 2019, was awarded a £156 million contract for PPE. Wait for it: the company was run by a Tory councillor, and no evidence—none whatsoever—was ever found of its supplying PPE previously.

Alec Shelbrooke: rose—

Andrew Bowie: rose—

Ian Blackford: If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine would like to stand up and defend what his Government have been doing, and Tory cronyism, he can be my guest.

Andrew Bowie: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I respectfully suggest that before he starts throwing stones at the UK Government, he looks at his own Government’s record in Edinburgh. Over 160 contracts awarded by the Scottish Government, worth £539 million from NHS Scotland, the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities, were awarded during the pandemic to suppliers with no competitive process. It is quite clear that every Government on these islands and around the world were dealing with an unprecedented situation and rushing to save lives. Exactly the same was going on in Edinburgh as was happening in London, and for him to stand up and claim it is “Tory cronyism” does not dignify him or this place.

Ian Blackford: I am afraid to say that the lack of dignity in the Conservative Government is what is at stake here. The Scottish Government’s processes on procurement were open and transparent—that is the difference with what has taken place in this place.
Let me give a couple of other examples. A company run by a former business associate of the Tory peer Baroness Mone was awarded a £122 million contract seven weeks after the company was formed—my goodness, who has ever heard of such a thing? Another company,  owned by a Tory donor, that supplied beauty products to high street stores was awarded a £65 million contract to produce face masks. Public First, which was awarded a £560,000 contract by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to conduct polling on the Union, was run by a former employee of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Colleagues, right hon. and hon. Members, there is a thread that runs right through this. Incidentally, we have yet to see any of the research into support for Scottish independence: perhaps the Government did not like what they found.

Alan Brown: My right hon. Friend is making a valid point. Is he aware of the recent report from openDemocracy that another person who helped to run Public First was Rachel Wolf, who was also a non-executive director at the Department for Work and Pensions at the time? Not only are Tory cronies getting contracts, but they have placemen who are supposed to challenge the Government but are actually helping to get contracts.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is quite correct. I am delighted that we have an opportunity today to shine a light on all this, but it demonstrates that we need to get on with the public inquiry. The public deserve to know what has been happening with this Government as we have come through the pandemic.
We have heard excuses from the Prime Minister and the former Health Secretary that some of these contracts were fast-tracked because there was no time to be wasted in such urgent circumstances. Well, some basic due diligence might have been useful. Perhaps unsurprisingly given the lack of expertise of some of those securing the covid procurement contracts, there have been numerous issues with the orders.
As reported by the BBC, 50 million face masks bought in April 2020 could not be used by the NHS because they did not meet its specifications. The use of 10 million surgical gowns for frontline NHS staff was suspended because of how the items were packaged. Millions of medical gowns were never used, having been bought for the NHS at the end of the first lockdown for £122 million. A million high-grade masks used in the NHS did not meet the right safety standards and have been withdrawn. What a waste of taxpayers’ money. What a shambles. At the same time, 3 million of our constituents have been left with no financial support. Those are the warped priorities of the Government.

Alec Shelbrooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Ian Blackford: There are, of course, numerous further examples of Tory sleaze in the Government’s response to the pandemic, of which we are all too aware. There was David Cameron’s lobbying of Cabinet Ministers to benefit Greensill Capital, of which he was a shareholder. We had Dido Harding, wife of a Tory MP, put in charge of the disastrous and costly Test and Trace despite a lack of experience in public health. And of course there is the issue of the £37 billion that has been spent  on it. Where is the value for money? Money wasted. [Interruption.] I suggest to the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) that this is a debate where he is permitted to put in to speak, but—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us calm down. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been trying to catch your eye for quite a while, Mr Blackford. It is up to you who you wish to give way to, but if you did, it might save us all more pain in the future.

Ian Blackford: If the right hon. Gentleman tries, he might catch your eye later on in the debate, Mr Speaker. I think we have heard enough of him from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] Government Members can carry on—there might not be that many of them, but my goodness they make a hullabaloo as they try to shut down and shout down the representatives of Scotland who are here to stand up for our constituents. [Interruption.] Yeah, carry on, carry on.

Andrew Bowie: You’re not “the” representatives.

Ian Blackford: Well, well, well. We are not the representatives of the people of Scotland? Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that we have just won an election to the Scottish Parliament. Thank goodness that we have a Parliament that has a majority that can take Scotland out of this Union, into the future of an independent Scotland back in the European Union and away from the Tory sleaze and corruption that I am outlining this afternoon.
It was just last week that I asked my urgent question from this spot on the misuse of public funds in covid contracts, but since then the revelations of cronyism have continued. As revealed by The Sunday Times, Lord Bethell has something in common with his close friend the former Health Secretary: he failed to declare meetings—27 meetings that we know of, with companies that went on to receive £1 billion-worth of covid contracts. Puzzlingly, despite having had—wait for it—no relevant experience, Lord Bethell took ministerial responsibility for Test and Trace. His only qualification seemed to be that he was a long-time close friend of the then Health Secretary who happened to chair and donate thousands of pounds to his failed Tory leadership campaign. Lord Bethell also provided Ms Coladangelo with a parliamentary pass to the Houses of Parliament despite her not undertaking any work for the peer. This has rightly been referred to the House of Lords Commissioners for Standards. It prompts the question: why is Lord Bethell still in post?
Such examples of Tory cronyism and multimillion-pound deals in the pockets of Tory friends are difficult to digest. It is hard, looking at this covid contracts scandal, to conclude anything other than that Westminster is rotten to the core. As well as unlawful covid contracts, we have seen dodgy donations to refurbish the Downing Street flat, peerages handed to billionaire Tory donors, and offers of tax breaks by text. The Scottish Government have committed to a public inquiry on the covid pandemic to start this year. The UK Government must do the same.
Those of us on these Benches know Scotland can do better. We are doing better and we could go further still with the powers of independence. While NHS heroes received a measly and insulting 1% pay rise from the UK Government, the Scottish Government pledged 4% with a £500 one-off thank you. While 3 million people are excluded from UK Government support, the SNP will continue to argue for them and stand up for them. While Tory aid cuts mean that the global fight  against the virus is hindered, we will continue to make the case that none of us will be free from the threat of covid-19 until it is eradicated from all around the world.
Support in Scotland for the First Minister remains steadfast, while the Prime Minister continues to be incredibly unpopular. A recent Ashcroft poll of Scottish voters found support for Nicola Sturgeon to be the highest of all party leaders, and common descriptions used for the First Minister were “determined” and “competent”. By comparison, the Prime Minister was commonly referred to as being dishonest, arrogant, out of touch and out of his depth. When it comes to our recovery from the pandemic, the question for Scots will be: who do you trust to lead us? For many Scots, the answer is becoming clearer and clearer with every passing day.

Jo Churchill: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this Opposition day debate on covid-19 contracts and the public inquiry into the handling of the outbreak.
Possibly the only two sentences that I could agree with in what, unfortunately, was largely just smear—[Interruption.] Mr Blackford—[Interruption.] I am frightfully sorry. I would just gently say this to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford): I sat quietly, with respect, listening to what you had to say. I would be really grateful for that same courtesy.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let me just say that we do not call Members by their names; we use their constituency. We need to take the tension out and take the heat out. Everybody should quite rightly be listened to. The same that I expected for the leader of the SNP I certainly expect for the Minister.

Jo Churchill: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
I agree that we have seen, totally, the best of people—our frontline workers and our NHS workers. They have really stepped up. They need to know that we did everything we could in exceptional circumstances. I remember the weekend I went to Liverpool to meet the plane that flew back from Wuhan with those very first individuals who were carrying the virus. We knew nothing of it at the time, so how far have we come?
The other point on which I would agree with the right hon. Member is that very pithy sentence, “Those of us on these Benches know Scotland can do better.” As he will appreciate, covid-19 has presented this country with one of the most unprecedented challenges we have ever faced. It has been imperative for us to work together closely throughout this pandemic. In particular, the Government recognise the key role devolved Administrations have played in this, and I have been incredibly grateful for the meetings I have had with my counterparts not only on issues relating to the pandemic but on other issues—there was a meeting last week in which we spoke about how we might address the challenge of those going through the journey of cancer. We are very grateful for that.
It is thanks to that close collaboration and co-ordination that we have been able as a United Kingdom to achieve success in our vaccine roll-out programme. Over three quarters of adults in the UK have received at least one  dose and well over half have received both doses. Our job was to protect the weakest and most vulnerable, and that goes for all of us.
Had we remained in the EU scheme, which has not performed as well as ours, we would not be here at this point, and I am proud of the work of the vaccines taskforce and proud of the leadership that Kate Bingham showed. I seem to remember these debates revolving around that at one time; I do not see anybody now denying and saying, “No, don’t give me a vaccine.” That work was led and driven by Kate Bingham and her team, who worked ceaselessly—longer days for longer weeks for longer months—to find our pathway out of this.

James Cartlidge: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and totally share in the point she just made about the vaccine. As she will have seen, when I intervened on the SNP spokesperson earlier I raised the point that Scotland has been described recently as the covid capital of Europe, and the SNP is refusing to take responsibility, and indeed is blaming the UK Government because of the delta variant. But is it not the case that since it became identified as a variant of concern, England played Scotland and the Scottish Government could have stopped thousands of Scots travelling south of the border? There was nothing to stop them doing that; they must take some responsibility for the fact that there are so many covid cases in Scotland.

Jo Churchill: I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber referred to his leader, who early on in the pandemic spoke about elimination, yet now the World Health Organisation says six out of 10 of the highest rates across Europe are currently in Scotland. That is why I think that if selective lines are picked out, and people are used as battering rams against each other rather than us looking sensibly at the facts, that means that we do not get the perspective we need to make sure that we come through this and that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the population and deliver the vaccine programme.
As I said, I am proud of the work that the UK Government have done in driving the vaccine. At the beginning of the pandemic we were told this would be a 10-year process; we got there in a year. That is utterly phenomenal, and there were great academics from Scotland who joined in; there were academics from across the world. We can deliver this, and the NHS is getting on with the job of vaccinating and allowing us that road to freedom.

Alec Shelbrooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that, because of the investment the UK Government made in the AstraZeneca vaccine and the Government’s worldwide collaborations and investment, not only have we been able to produce the vaccine in 10% of the predicted time but we unlocked technology that will serve the health service and people of this country for many years to come?

Jo Churchill: I could not agree more. The vibrancy and quality of the life sciences industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the academic ecosystem in Scotland, in Wales, in Northern Ireland and in the UK really does unleash a bright future for us. It is thanks to that joint   working that we have been able to procure at speed vital goods and services, such as ventilators and PPE, which have been so critical to our response in the pandemic. To date, every patient who has needed a ventilator has had access to one. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber will celebrate the jobs that have been created—I think it is 450 of them—at the Honeywell factory in Motherwell, producing PPE for the frontline. We now have a home-grown industry that provides 70% of all PPE, apart from gloves, and we are working hard to find the right materials so that we can have a glove industry as well. That is what I call a success story, from a standing start back in April.

Joanna Cherry: rose—

Alan Brown: rose—

Jo Churchill: I will give way in a minute. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber is well aware of the public contract regulations, which existed before the pandemic and which allow the Government to procure at speed in times of emergency. There was no need to suspend or relax the procurement rules in order to use those regulations. I gently say that these were the same systems as in Scotland and Wales. We had an unprecedented global crisis and, quite rightly, people had to use existing regulation that allows them to flex in order to deliver for their populations.
The use of the emergency contracting procedures has reduced since the early days of the pandemic. That contingency procedure is, however, still available to Departments provided the key tests are met. The Government have always understood the scale of the challenges that we have faced as a nation, and that is why, from the start of the pandemic, we were clear with public authorities that they would need to act extremely quickly to meet the challenge of covid-19. We have also been clear about the continued need to use good commercial judgment and to publish the details of awards made, in line with Government transparency guidance.

Alan Brown: I thank the Minister for giving way. The emergency tender procedure that she highlights is the one that was previously used to award a ferry contract to a company with no ferries, so we know how bad the governance is from this Government. On governance, openDemocracy recently confirmed that 16 non-executive directors appointed to various Departments are Vote Leave compadres, Tory chums and Tory donors. They are the ones who are supposed to hold the Government to account. Can she explain the selection process for these non-executive director roles?

Jo Churchill: No, I will not. Those non-executive directors are selected through a selection procedure because they hold skills—commercial skills, legal skills and so on—from the outside world. If the hon. Gentleman is telling me that the way someone votes in an election makes them unable to scrutinise, that makes a mockery of the way that we set up Select Committees and so on. It is important that people are enabled to come in with their skills from the outside world to scrutinise.
That being said, we are committed to looking for opportunities to improve the way that we work. The first independent Boardman review of procurement processes, looking at a small number of contracts in the Government Communication Service, has reported to Government. Twenty-four of the 28 recommendations  have already been implemented, and the remainder will be met by the end of the calendar year. A second review by Nigel Boardman into pandemic planning and procurement across Government identified further recommended improvements to the procurement process. Work is under way to progress them, and an update will be given to the Public Accounts Committee this month—a double layer of making sure that we are doing the right thing. The Cabinet Office Green Paper “Transforming public procurement” also sets out proposals to update the rules on procuring in times of extreme urgency or crisis to include lessons learned from the pandemic.
Procurement has been and is being extensively reviewed, including by the independent National Audit Office report published last year on Government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic, but the Government know that there is so much more to learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is why the Prime Minister confirmed a public inquiry into covid-19, which will begin its work next spring. I hear the calls for that inquiry to be brought forward, but I believe it would be irresponsible. A premature inquiry risks distracting Ministers, officials and Departments from the ongoing pandemic response, slowing down action and diverting the very people we need to be focused on each delicate stage of our ongoing response. I would also gently say that with six out of 10 of the highest-rate areas in Scotland and the pandemic still very visible in the north-west, north-east, Yorkshire and Humber, it is incumbent on us to deal with the pandemic as our first priority.
This was a global pandemic. It impacted all of us: individuals, friends, businesses and our own families across the UK and across the world. We have to recover as one team, team UK, or else we are weakened. It is right that we learn these lessons together. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations as we develop the inquiry. I know that they, too, will welcome the scrutiny and the diligence that an inquiry will bring not only to England, but also to Scotland.

Fleur Anderson: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for missing the first couple of minutes of the debate. I did, however, hear the excellent contribution by the leader of the SNP, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). It is no reflection on my feeling about the importance of this debate not just for us as Opposition parties, but for the people of the whole of Britain who are listening to these questions and who want more answers than those we have just heard. Maybe we will have them at the end of this debate.
On the Opposition Benches, we share the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman came to in his remarks, which is that Government procurement over the past 16 months has been marred by huge waste to the taxpayer and brazen cronyism. That is not to say that the vaccine roll-out has not been an enormous success, but if that is all we going to hear from Conservative Members we will not get to the heart of the debate. At the same time as we were rolling out the vaccine, these crony covid contracts were being made and there are questions that must be answered for contracts being given now and for the future, as well as those given last year.

Joanna Cherry: The hon. Lady will have heard the Minister suggest that the same processes have been followed in Scotland and Wales as were followed by the British Government; but does she agree with me that it is only the British Government who have been found, twice, to have acted unlawfully?

Fleur Anderson: I agree with the hon. and learned Lady. This is not about the processes and whether they have been followed, but about what undue weight was given to the resulting contracts that came out of those processes. Some of them have been taken up in court, so there are questions to be answered.
For over 12 months now, my colleagues and I in the shadow Cabinet Office team have been asking some very simple questions again and again of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and his team over their procurement policy during the pandemic. Every time, we have been met with deflection and non-answers. Those questions have not been getting an answer, so I will try again today. That is not very impressive for the Department responsible for increasing transparency across Whitehall, and it is transparency that we are talking about today. But it is not only about transparency. Were those contracts given to the right companies to save lives at the right time? Without question, we needed speed. Without question, we needed the best companies to be chosen. The question is, when it comes to another emergency, pandemic or crisis, do the Government throw due transparency out of the window and just start talking to their friends?

Alec Shelbrooke: The hon. Lady said that shadow Cabinet Office Ministers have been asking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster questions about the things going on. However, I warn the hon. Lady—I say this to draw us back to where we were 12 or 15 months ago —that the then shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying that he was not awarding PPE contracts quickly enough, and that he should be bypassing the system to get them out there. She then gave a list of companies in my city of Leeds that had offered support, and they included a football agent, an historical clothing company, an events company in Surrey and a private legal practice in Birmingham. All I say to the hon. Lady is that there are lessons to be learned, but in terms of what she is trying to say, please do not think that Opposition Members were all innocent and that the Government were guilty and need to follow some lesson, because the reality is that the then shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster put it in writing.

Fleur Anderson: Of course there are questions to be asked, and that is what we are doing—we are asking these questions. I hope that there is a real-time review going on right now, and I hope that all the questions we are asking will be in the public inquiry to come. All these questions need to be looked into.
I have 15 questions for the Minister today, which I hope she will be able to answer. Question 1: what assessment has she made of the accuracy of the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson’s statement on 28 June 2021 on the conduct of ministerial Government business  through departmental email addresses? The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), said, only two hours after the statement that day, that
“a huge volume of correspondence was coming to Ministers via their personal email addresses”.—[Official Report, 28 June 2021; Vol. 698, c. 33.]
The Minister will have seen the leaked minutes from the Department of Health and Social Care meeting on 9 December, confirming that. So was the Prime Minister’s spokesperson not telling the truth, or just wrong, and will the Prime Minister be correcting the record? The use of private email addresses, how it all came to be and the murky times around that time need to be opened up to transparency.
It is hugely welcome news that the Information Commissioner’s Office will be investigating that point. The Government must co-operate fully. It is not just about freedom of information law and data protection law, important as that is; it is about taxpayers’ money being dished out secretly on private emails. Labour expects the Government to ensure that they come clean on private email use in other Departments, and that anyone found to have acted unlawfully or inappropriately in ministerial office faces the consequences.
Question 2: in her response to last week’s urgent question, the Parliamentary Secretary said that 47 offers of PPE supplies were processed through the Government’s priority mailbox. The Government have said that the details of all contracts will be published, but have refused to name the 47 companies. Who are those 47 companies, why are they not being named, and will those names be published now?
Question 3: can the Minister tell us which Ministers formally approved contracts awarded under the emergency procurement process during the covid pandemic? The Minister will have no doubt read the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s recent report on decision making during the pandemic, and it has a whole slew of other questions. It concluded:
“Ministers have passed responsibility between the Cabinet Office and Department of Health and Social Care”.
So who was responsible for actually signing off those contracts?
That leads me to question 4: which Minister made the decision to award a contract to Public First for contact focus group testing in March 2020? The Cabinet Office has stated that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not personally sign off the decision, so if he did not, who did?
Question 5, which was raised earlier in this debate: what role do the army of non-executive directors currently employed across Whitehall have in influencing the award of contracts? Did they have a say in the process or the decisions behind the award of those contracts? For instance, how can the Minister explain the fact that Kate Lampard, the lead non-executive director on the Department of Health and Social Care board, is also a senior associate at the consultancy firm Verita, which in May was awarded a contract by the same Department, worth £35,000, to assist Public Health England? It is not just about how people vote when they are awarded these positions. It is not about their voting tendency. It is their closeness to Ministers and others, and their closeness to some of the contracts being given out, that the public need to know more about.
This brings me nicely on to question 6. What steps were taken by the Department to identify and address conflicts of interest in relation to the contracts awarded through the VIP lane? Is the Minister confident that all meetings between Ministers and companies that were awarded contracts have been fully disclosed and added to the transparency data? Can we be assured of that today?
Question 7: I mentioned the leaked minutes of the December meeting of the Department of Health and Social Care. In that meeting the second permanent secretary used the term “sub-approval”. Can the Minister enlighten us on the sub-approval process? What does it mean in relation to Government covid contracts? The public have so many questions about what was going on in the contracting last year.
Question 8: the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster, spoke in a Westminster Hall debate on Monday 21 June, which I attended, about the market conditions facing suppliers in China. There have been questions about links with China. In that same debate, I referenced evidence uncovered by the Good Law Project that showed officials in the Department of Health and Social Care were aware that an agent working for PestFix, the pest company that got a covid contract, may have been bribing officials in China. The point was not addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, in that debate, so I ask the Minister to comment on it today. Is she aware of this allegation? Does she agree that, no matter how difficult market conditions were at the time, it warrants urgent investigation?
Question 9: I also asked in that debate whether the Cabinet Office would commit to auditing in detail all the contracts identified by Transparency International as raising red flags for possible corruption, and to commit to publishing the outcome of that audit. This would go a long way to restoring public trust. If it cannot be done, why not? What do the Government have to hide? I am afraid this is a question to which I did not receive an answer in that debate, so I hope to receive an answer this afternoon.
Question 10: the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, said she believes there are cases where clawback is taking place, and other Ministers have mentioned it, too, but we do not know when it has happened and what was in the contracts for those that failed, by millions of pounds in some cases. Is the Minister in a position to provide more detail?
In the past 12 months, the Government have awarded £280 million of contracts for masks that did not meet the required standards, at a time when we were crying out for PPE that would save lives. I presume those masks had to be mothballed. I do not know where they are.
The Government spent £100 million on gowns without carrying out technical checks, so they could not be used. It is incredibly important that as much of this taxpayers’ money as possible is retrieved as soon as possible. Perhaps the Minister can explain to the nurses facing a pay cut, and to the 3 million who have been excluded from any help, that the money has gone to boost the profits of the firms that received these contracts, rather than coming back to the public purse.
Similarly, my eleventh question is about how much money the Government have spent defending themselves in court against the unlawful decisions that have been made.

James Cartlidge: How much does the hon. Lady think the investigation into the former Mayor of Liverpool will cost?

Fleur Anderson: I do not know how much further investigations will cost, but that does not preclude from needing to investigate this point. We cannot deflect by looking at other investigations; we need to have an investigation into this point.
Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on masks that have been mothballed and on gowns that could not be used because the contracts were not good enough. At a time of public emergency, we need the Government to be excellent in their competence in contracting, and not to throw the rules out of the window and end up with these failed contracts.
Question 12: why, despite all the evidence uncovered this year, will the Government still not commit to ensuring these contracts are in the public inquiry? I hope to hear confirmation that this will happen.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The hon. Lady is asking a series of highly pertinent questions, and I wonder whether we will receive the answers with any haste. Does she agree that we also need an urgent inquiry in Wales, where it has become apparent that almost 2,000 deaths occurred from infections that probably, or definitely, took place in hospitals and were therefore the responsibility of the Welsh Government, and that we need that inquiry urgently?

Fleur Anderson: Inquiries need to happen in real time, as we are learning, because we are making decisions all the time that affect our lives. There also need to be major Government inquiries, and I hope that all of this will be included in the Government inquiry to come.
The Minister made much of the Boardman review, saying, “There has been an inquiry. Don’t worry. The Boardman review has done it,” but this is my thirteenth question. It is, again, a question that I have asked before and received no answer to: does she seriously believe that the Boardman review is an independent and unbiased review, and good enough? How can she think that when Mr Boardman’s law firm has been the recipient of Government contracts in the past year, and given that Mr Boardman once ran to be a Conservative councillor—far more than just voting for one party or another? It looks more and more as if the Conservatives are set on glossing over the cronyism in their ranks, so that they can carry on as if nothing has happened.
I have two more questions, and then I will close. Question 14: when will we see a return of all public sector procurement to open competitive contracting as a default? The Minister said that emergency procurement procedures are still continuing, but they do not need to anymore. We need a way of having a contract in good time but with all the open competitiveness that the public need to see. There is no justification for the continuation of emergency procedures. They should be wound down immediately, and ways found to make contracting work without being secretive.
Finally, my fifteenth question: where is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to answer these questions? The Cabinet Office is responsible for overseeing transparency across Government, and these are the fundamental questions that we have today. Why has he once again dodged an opportunity to explain the decisions  made by his Department? Will he ever take responsibility and stop getting other Ministers to do his explaining for him, as has happened in many previous debates on this issue? The public will not stop asking these questions. We on the Opposition Benches will not stop asking these questions. We need some answers.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Minister, who will have to field some incredibly difficult questions about serious allegations. When such debates come up I can imagine that the conversation that Ministers have about who will reply is not a pleasant one. There are some very serious allegations, and I hope to hear the answers this afternoon.

Eleanor Laing: I hope that we can manage the debate without a time limit. We will do so if everyone takes around six minutes. That will mean plenty of time for interventions and real debate.

Gagan Mohindra: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Opposition day debate on the awarding of covid contracts. It is probably worth starting with where we were 16 or 17 months ago. At the time, we were just hearing about the covid-19 pandemic and what it meant for our lives. With the benefit of hindsight, things may have been done slightly differently, but we should not use our experience over the past 16 or 17 months to prejudge the decisions that we had to make very quickly as a nation back in February and March last year.
I had the honour of sitting on the Public Accounts Committee earlier in my parliamentary term. Under the stewardship of Gareth Davies, the Committee works hand in glove with the National Audit Office. I know that the Committee, ably chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), has done various investigations into the response to the pandemic, with a particular focus on procurement and money. Scottish National party Members will be grateful to know that their colleague the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is a vocal member of the Committee and, I am sure, will give wise counsel in future debates.
When I saw the topic of the debate, I was a bit surprised that the SNP had decided to call for it. I refer to its manifesto earlier this year in the local government elections that we had up in Scotland.

Gavin Newlands: Parliamentary elections.

Gagan Mohindra: Sorry—the national Holyrood elections. The manifesto, on page 9, committed to a Scotland covid review. Unfortunately, the leadership up there has now done a U-turn and has not committed to that, so on behalf of the Royal College of Nurses and the GMB union, I urge them to have a rethink and hopefully commit to delivering what was promised in the manifesto.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) referred to the disappointing news that Edinburgh is regarded as the covid capital of Europe. I will not be political on this one; I just think that it is a disappointment and that all colleagues across the House will hope that, with our heated debate and constructive criticism, we  will get a better result quickly. With that sentiment in mind, I urge colleagues: where Government Members can help, please do not be shy about asking.
Let me go back 16 or 17 months, with the benefit of hindsight—unfortunately the Leader of the official Opposition is not in his place; he uses hindsight a lot. There was a real fear that, as a country, we were potentially running out of PPE. It was this Conservative Government who gave a call to arms and said, “Actually, the United Kingdom needs a national effort”. We did that to ensure that we had the right PPE and other things in place for those on our frontline. Reference has been made to not using the normal procurement process and I urge colleagues to look at the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which allow the accelerated procurement that has been used during this global pandemic—an event that fortunately happens only once every 100 years, approximately.
Colleagues on both sides of the House refer to the quantum of PPE and I think we need to put that in context. We have an additional 22,000 ventilators, 11 billion pieces of PPE and 507 million doses of vaccine. Those are phenomenal figures. Did each procurement absolutely hit the spot? No, but the figures quoted earlier in this House, I suggest, were a very small percentage of poor delivery, and I am sure that the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and various other bodies in this House and in the Palace will look into that further.
There have been various accusations about relationships that Conservative Members of Parliament may have with business owners or others involved in procurement. I gently urge Members to be mindful that there have been multiple independent investigations, including some in this House and from the National Audit Office, that have all shown that there was no conflict of interest with Members of Parliament, and that if there were, they were properly declared at the time.
Reference has been made to the Boardman review, which reported at the back end of last year and the 28 recommendations that the Government have already committed to implementing. I know that Opposition Members were urging a quicker review and investigation on the pandemic, but the deputy chief medical officer has argued that this would be regarded as “an extra burden” and a “distraction” from the successful vaccine roll-out.
Reference has been made to the SNP Scottish Government’s procurement processes and the fact that £539 million of grants and contracts were awarded without a competitive process or proper scrutiny. I urge colleagues to have a look at the Audit Scotland review, which has investigated the three separate pandemic preparedness exercises that were undertaken, with some of the lessons that should and need to be learned from that. I will leave it there; I look forward to other contributions.

Dave Doogan: If you type the words “covid contract” into Google, the first suggested return is “corruption”, so this Government are fooling nobody. There is no denying that the pandemic was unprecedented. There is no denying that every single Government across the globe have made mistakes, even in countries regarded  as having a high degree of covid success, ahead of that of the UK—and there are many countries ahead of the UK in that respect. But the havoc wreaked on the UK by this Government is unforgivable. Efforts to secure contracts for friends and jobs for associates were their priority. That is the epitome of sleaze, and makes the cash-for-questions scandal that engulfed the same Tory party in the 1990s seem like a teardrop in the ocean. Many tears have been shed over the past 14 months, and I would like to pay my respects to the devastated families across these islands whose loved ones have succumbed long before their time as a result of this pandemic.
The UK is currently at the wrong end of the European table, with 1,952 deaths per million, compared with Ireland at 1,011, and Japan—the benchmark—at 127. That is an unforgivable outcome for an island nation with a developed economy and a developed, highly functioning health service. British exceptionalism lies at the heart of this Tory Government’s failed response, combined with delay, dithering and distraction by financial considerations and commercial opportunity. That saw an inevitable UK covid death toll expand to the actual UK covid death toll, and we need to see the gap between those two figures quantified in a public inquiry.
We must also inquire why it was only recently that such an inept Health Secretary was replaced. He presided over a litany of judgments as arrogant as they were poor and over decisions that, when taken together, allowed the covid death toll to reach more than 128,000 people during the pandemic in the UK. He was a Health Secretary whom the Prime Minister himself described as useless. We need the public inquiry to commence immediately.
The Prime Minister’s watery defence that we are fighting the pandemic and must wait till next spring was weak when he announced it and it has collapsed completely now. If he thinks it is time to remove face coverings— and it is not—then it is time for a public inquiry. No more time must be afforded to this dodgy, delinquent Administration of clientelism to tidy up their loose ends and administer away their inconvenient paper trails—where paper trails exist at all.
These Ministers are quite prepared to break domestic and international law if it suits their objectives—“Why let the law get in the way of Tory ideology?” is what I take to be their mantra. Let me provide three examples: the preparedness to breach the Northern Ireland protocol, the unlawful prorogation of Parliament in 2019 and Ministers now unlawfully refusing to publish a full list of covid contracts. What we do know is that billions have gone to politically connected companies, to former Ministers and Government advisers, and to others who donated to the Tory party; billions have gone to companies that had no prior experience in supplying PPE, from fashion designers, to pest controllers and jewellers; and billions have gone to companies with a controversial history, from tax evasion to fraud, corruption and human rights abuses.
In November, the National Audit Office revealed that this Tory Government had awarded £10.5 billion-worth of pandemic-related contracts, without a competitive tender process, in a VIP lane—how very Tory—and that companies with the right political connections were 10 times more likely to win than those outwith. The attitude at the heart of this UK Government was so demonstrably rotten, so bold and so unashamedly  opportunistic that the Chancellor of the Duchy of the Lancaster felt that he could simply spend vital covid moneys on political polling on the state of the Union in Scotland. He could have asked me, because I would have told him for nothing: the Union is a busted flush in Scotland. He even made sure that his pals, the private fund Public First, got the contract into the bargain.
On track and trace, quite how this Government have budgeted £37 billion—a cost described as “unimaginable” by the Public Accounts Committee—to a system that has singularly failed to do its solitary job of helping to avoid a second lockdown, when we have now just emerged from a third, is simply incomprehensible. The UK Government have committed to wasting more than the entire budget of the Scottish Government in 1920 on a project that has failed miserably. For context, let me say that £37 billion would buy 148 Type 31 frigates from Babcock in Rosyth. That is the colossal scale of what we are talking about, but that is the Tory way, and they have no opposition in this place, as we can see from a depressingly empty set of Labour Benches—we might have thought that Her Majesty’s Opposition would front up to talk in detail about some of these important issues. That is the Tory way, where patronage and cronyism are rife and are upheld by privilege that starts at Eton and Harrow, and gets refined at Oxford and Cambridge, before reaping its entitlement off a weary population of taxpayers.
But that is not Scotland’s way. When the public inquiry reports, if it does, Scotland will take a different way. We take one look at the posh old pals’ network masquerading as a Government—for the next 30 years, unopposed—and Scotland says no. We have already rejected their so-called Union, we will have our referendum and we will be independent, forever turning our back on unending Tory sleaze.

Alec Shelbrooke: As a comprehensive schoolboy, that privilege really runs right through me! However, let us be serious. First, let me say that we are dealing with a subject that has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. Millions of people around the world have died from a disease that nobody had even heard of, because it probably did not exist, two years ago. In that short time, we have had to do things, in the developed world and across all of the world, including in this country, that nobody would ever have dreamed of. We had to react very quickly to those things.
It is worth taking a step back to where we were, because short memories do not serve us well for the future. As I mentioned to the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), at that time several people were coming to MPs, from all over, with suggestions, and not to make a quick buck; a lot of them answered the call to help out in the crisis the country and the world were in—one that not only affected this country, but created a worldwide shortage of the very equipment and supplies that the world needed. Of course, what has come out of this pandemic is a look at the global supply chains and how they have to change, and that is tearing up the convention that has existed for many decades across many parts of the world. It took the crisis to say, “When we stretch out your supply chains like that in a world crisis, they are not going to work in the best way possible.” The pressure for personal protective equipment was enormous.
Again, I make the point about the letter that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which covered two aspects. First, it said, “All these people are offering you PPE. Why haven’t you bought it? Why are you taking so long to buy it?” That is there in black and white, in an official letter sent to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The letter then listed other companies that had come to the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and said that they could supply things; as I said before, there were football agents, historical clothing companies, events companies and private legal practices in Birmingham. I am not saying that in a sense of mockery; I am saying that to make the point that Members of Parliament from all parties—from across the House—received several emails and representations from those trying to supply PPE to deal with the crisis. It was the responsibility of Members of Parliament to pass those emails and those contacts into the system to see what would happen.
I equally understand that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had a frustration about the length of time it was taking for those contracts to be awarded, because we were all desperately trying to solve a problem that the world was facing to get PPE to where it needed to be. Of course we can name contracts that went wrong. We can do that in any walk of life and for any contract. It does not mean there was an endemic failure. Things were happening in a very short space of time and certain procurements did not meet the standards, but the last figure I heard showed they amounted to less than 1% of all the PPE that was procured. That is not a bad hit rate when there was not time to fill in the paperwork.
It is important that we bring these issues out in these debates, but why we do that is being lost in this one. There are, quite rightly, calls for an inquiry, but do we want it so that the country can learn, move forward and understand how to tackle things in the future, or is it for cheap political points? What I have heard so far is, pretty much, “If we had independence, we wouldn’t have any problems.” From almost the first sentence that came out of the mouth of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) there was the argument for independence, and it has gone on and on. We have heard, “If Scotland was independent, it would be different.” Well, it would not be that different, because Scotland would not be in the EU and it would not have had a chance to take part in the UK-wide procurement that supplied the vaccine programme. Let us not forget that the British armed forces have also contributed a huge amount to the fight against the pandemic. There has been a UK-wide force—the strength of this Union—delivering for every adult in the country. It does no service at all to try to make what has happened in the last 18 months into an argument about independence. It should stop this afternoon.

Richard Thomson: Since the right hon. Member has taken us on to the Union, why did the Government seek to poll Scottish attitudes to it if its benefits were so self-evident throughout? Why were public funds that were intended for covid procurement misdirected to pay for that polling?

Alec Shelbrooke: I despair. I literally just said that we are supposed to be examining the procurement of PPE and when the inquiry comes, and yet we go back to  those allegations. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will once again give the answers that were given previously. Stop it! Grow up! The reality is that we are dealing with an issue that has caused the deaths of millions of people across the world, including tens of thousands of people in this country. Today we need to explore where things went wrong—that is important —why the inquiry should wait and how it should take place.
By profession I am a mechanical engineer and, as somebody who flies around the world, I have an interest—a morbid interest, I suppose—in the programme “Air Crash Investigation”, which my wife will not watch under any circumstances, given her fear of flying. Aircraft safety has improved immensely in the past decades, and that is because there is a no-blame culture. That ties straight in with the report published this week by the Health and Social Care Committee on deaths in natal care and having a no-blame culture. We may want to get to the analysis of what went wrong and why it went wrong, but we cannot do that from a position of wondering, “Am I covering my political back? Am I covering my professional back? Can I have an honest conversation?”
We have to understand what went wrong. Things did go wrong. There cannot be a single person in the Chamber or indeed across the country who felt that everything went really well and was fine. Nobody says that. Nobody believes that. It is self-evidently not true that everything went fine. We do have to learn lessons, and it is important that we learn them though the matrix of what went wrong. As we have said, plenty of preparation was done for a flu pandemic, but that turned out not to be able to handle this pandemic. It is therefore important that we analyse the pressures caused by different diseases that can come forward. [Interruption.] I heard things from a sedentary position, but I did not notice what was said.
Ultimately, we have not had any sense of the SNP taking responsibility where they have responsibility—indeed, it was noticeable that the leader of the SNP just dismissed the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), mocked it and tried to put the blame back on the UK Government. Quite simply, if people are really taking notice of this debate this afternoon, they will think that it needs to be a lot more mature and serious than it has been so far.

Anum Qaisar-Javed: I begin by remembering those who have lost their lives over the last year and a half. Like many Members in the House, I have lost loved ones. I am sure that many people who have lost loved ones will be watching this and will be interested to note the manner in which parliamentarians are conducting themselves.
“Gesture politics”—if the Home Secretary claims that taking the knee in a football match is gesture politics, I have news for this Government: clapping hands for the NHS rather than giving them an adequate pay rise is a gesture. Rather than providing financial assistance to those, such as NHS staff, who risk their lives, the Government are lining the pockets of their rich friends.
As a relatively new Member of this place, I was informed of the seven standards of public life—the Nolan principles. As an elected Member, I must hold  myself to these standards, as must all Members, including those on the Government Benches. Let us take a moment to examine these seven principles and see just how this Tory Government fit in. “Selflessness”: Members must
“act solely in terms of the public interest.”
Instead, the Minister for the Cabinet Office used taxpayers’ money intended for covid recovery on examining attitudes towards the Union. “Integrity”: Members
“should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.”
Well, where do I start? “Objectivity”: Members
“must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit”.
But we know that judges ruled that the UK Government had acted unlawfully in awarding a contract worth over half a million pounds to a firm known to associates of Government Ministers. “Accountability”: Members
“are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions”.
Yet the Department of Health and Social Care failed to declare 27 meetings of a Minister in the other place at the outset of the pandemic. The companies involved in those meetings went on to acquire public service contracts worth over £1 billion. “Openness”:
“Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
In May 2020, the former Health Secretary was found guilty of a minor technical breach of the ministerial code after initially failing to declare his stake in an NHS supplier—a company run by his sister and his brother-in-law. Members must also “be truthful”. The former Health Secretary used private email accounts to communicate and award substantial covid-related contracts to his friends.
Finally, there is “Leadership”: Members
“should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour.”
I am not sure whether we are seeing that.
When we consider the record of this Tory Government, we see that they have failed to uphold a single one of the seven principles of public life to which we are bound. They have failed to act selflessly, placing the financial prosperity of their friends and colleagues above the needs of our NHS. They have lacked integrity, indebting themselves to private companies and exchanging contracts for donations and favours. They have lacked objectivity, handing out contract to their friends while some of the most vulnerable in society suffer under their policies. And now they are delaying this public inquiry, denying the country the openness, honesty and accountability that the electorate deserve.
However, we in Scotland have a choice to escape this Tory sleaze and build a fairer and more democratic future as an independent nation. Scotland taking the reins and becoming an independent nation is not just for the sake of independence: I truly believe that with independence, we can build a fairer Scotland, a Scotland that is reflective of all those who choose to make it their home. We can build a society that invests in our people; we can build a stronger, more diverse economy; and we can finally ensure that power resides in Scotland, with a Government that the people of Scotland have elected.

Angela Richardson: It is a pleasure to speak in this Opposition day debate, and I will address the motion—which I am not sure has anything  to do with Scottish independence, which is what we heard about in the last speech. It calls on the Government to immediately commence the covid-19 public inquiry.

Stephen Flynn: The hon. Member says that the motion has nothing to do with Scottish independence, so why did the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Cabinet Office put forward a contract that specifically looked for Scottish views on independence? What was the purpose of that, if not to understand independence?

Angela Richardson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but as I said, I am going to speak to the motion that his party has tabled today for discussion.
The Prime Minister has already confirmed that an independent inquiry into the handling of the pandemic is expected to begin in the spring of 2022. This inquiry will be on a statutory basis, with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials and take oral evidence under public oath. Every part of the state pulled together to tackle this virus, and as we recover as one United Kingdom, we must learn the lessons together in the same spirit. That is why the Government will consult the devolved Administrations before finalising the scope and details of the arrangements of this inquiry.
Given the scale of the inquiry and the resources required to carry it out, from identifying and disclosing all relevant information to giving that oral evidence, launching an inquiry would place a significant burden on our NHS and scientific advisers at a time when focus must still be on the fight against the virus. We are still rolling out the vaccine project; we have booster jabs to get into arms in the autumn; we will have winter pressures on the NHS; and, as we have discussed in recent days, we are rightly focused on addressing all of those missed appointments for other health concerns. Our deputy chief medical officer has said that an inquiry now would be an unnecessary extra burden that would distract the NHS from the vaccine roll-out:
“Personally, would an inquiry be an unwelcome distraction for me personally, at the moment, when I’m very focussed on the vaccine programme and the vaccine programme we might need in the autumn? Who knows, I think it would be an extra burden that wasn’t necessary.”

Alec Shelbrooke: Does that really not just make the point that what the inquiry needs to do is learn lessons so that we can move forward and be better prepared next time, rather than just scoring cheap political points?

Angela Richardson: I agree with my right hon. Friend: as always, he makes an excellent point.
We have acted at pace to protect our NHS and save lives, by delivering more than 11 billion items of personal protective equipment to our key workers and helping to protect all those working on the frontline in our fight against the virus. From the onset of the pandemic, we have acted at pace to secure the PPE that we all need. We purchased over 32 billion items for the whole of the UK, three quarters of which will now be provided by British manufacturers—that is massive upscaling at speed—and we have distributed over 11.7 billion items of PPE across England since February 2020.
We have talked about the success of the vaccine roll- out, but what was amazing was securing those 507 million doses of the eight most promising vaccines through our vaccine taskforce for every corner of our Union. We can be incredibly proud not only of that but of the investment in the COVAX project.

Dave Doogan: Let me share with the hon. Lady my appreciation that the vaccine roll-out has been a tremendous success. I am not certain that any of my colleagues said that it was not a tremendous success. Does she agree, however, that it is the one thing that this Government got right in the whole pandemic, and that a vaccine never brought anybody back from the dead?

Angela Richardson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he is being a little bit too narrow in his focus by saying that we only got one thing right. The way we invested in that scheme was replicated across many areas. We rightly hold that up as the absolute beacon of success, but there are many other areas where we used similar sorts of processes and where we had successes. We need to keep that in mind. Our diagnostic capacity has been excellent at identifying new strains, and we have to discuss that as well.

James Cartlidge: Is it not true that our brilliant scientists also developed groundbreaking treatments such as dexamethasone that, in the long run, will be the most crucial to ensuring that those who are seriously ill recover?

Angela Richardson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those therapeutics have made a huge difference to people who are unfortunately hospitalised. In my local hospital, the Royal Surrey, the doctor who led the covid ward was seconded from treating cancer, and he has learned many things by being involved in running that ward that will be beneficial not only for the pandemic but for anything coming down the line.
The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is no longer in his place, but in his speech he gave several examples of companies that had no previous experience in the production of something but had turned their hand to helping us to source things that we needed for the pandemic. I would ask the right hon. Member, if he were in his place, what he would say to all the whisky distilleries in Scotland that turned their hand to making hand sanitiser. What message is he giving to them today? I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the gin distilleries in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that got in touch with me. They had made hand sanitiser and wanted a contact to speak to at my local hospital so that they could gift that hand sanitiser to it.
The Opposition would like us to take a trip down memory lane. Well, I am quite happy to do that. I was newly elected in December 2019, and I still have my training wheels on. I think a lot of us still feel like that. I had barely given my maiden speech before we were locked down and put into this situation. When you start as a new MP, you build your team from scratch. It is not there already waiting for you. At the most difficult time, I had about 1,500 emails a day coming into my inbox, and there were three of us dealing with them. We were trying to triage them and help as many people as we could. At the same time, I was receiving emails from  people I had never met. I am an immigrant, and I went to a state school, so I am not connected in the way that the Opposition like to suggest about Conservative Members. It is a complete farce to talk like that, especially about a lot of those who have come in in the new intake—

Alec Shelbrooke: Discrimination!

Angela Richardson: It is. But I was receiving those emails and I knew it was my duty and responsibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) has said, to pass on every single one of them, because I did not know which one would make a difference. That was not up to me; my job was to pass them on. I did not know most of those people from Adam, but I knew I had a responsibility to do that. I did not know about the eight-step process that civil servants were looking at for awarding contracts. I did not know whether any of them would be successful, but I hoped they would be. I hoped that many of the companies and individuals who put forward good ideas would have some success, because that is what we needed to tackle the pandemic.
We are at risk today of politicising this and going back into the Westminster bubble. We are at risk of not acknowledging the true heroes of the pandemic. Not us politicians, as we were just doing our job, but the businesses, schools and individuals in my constituency that suddenly came up with an idea or turned their hands to something. They were so proud of creating PPE for our local hospital, and they did an amazing job. We must remember, as we look back over the pandemic and as we consider our lessons learned, the trust spirit of communities coming together. I would wager that not just in constituencies in England, but in all four corners of the nation—in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—there were people in the community who were making a difference. We have so much more in common than that which divides us, and that is how I would like to finish my speech.

Ronnie Cowan: Any private company or public organisation worth its salt will have procurement policies in place that ensure it purchases materials that provide value for money and are fit to do the job. Those working in procurement teams will be expected to maintain high standards of propriety and ethics. Contracts to supply will be based on a mature purchasing system that has been developed over years, to ensure that both the purchaser and the supplier are satisfied with the deal, which means paying a fair price for suitable goods. That is a basic, standard guideline. Any junior procurement officer would understand that from day one.
Yet the procurement process that is within the full control of the UK Government, controller of all UK citizens’ tax, appears to have embarked on a poorly orchestrated spending spree, with many contracts being handed out in what can only be described as dubious fashion.
Recently, the Government quietly published the details of 40 PPE contracts awarded a year ago during the first wave of the pandemic. The value of those contracts was an eye-watering £4.2 billion. I accept the figures will be large when the Government hand out contracts, so what  is required is transparency and the utmost integrity. I am sure we all remember our maths teacher setting problems for us and saying, “I don’t just want the answer. I want to see your workings.” The same principle applies.
It is interesting that 365 Healthcare, a trading division of Bunzl, was handed a £151 million PPE deal on 1 April 2020 without explaining why it won the contract or what was better about its bid compared with the competition. That is not good enough, especially when, as the Good Law Project revealed, a Conservative peer had lobbied for PPE contracts on behalf of Bunzl while still acting as an adviser to DHSC. Globus Shetland landed a £14 million deal in April 2020 to provide eye protection and respirators. The firm had previously donated £375,000 to the Conservative party.
The UK Government should be held up to the highest scrutiny, and they should govern in such a way that they have nothing to fear. Who created the VIP list? What were the criteria, and what was the motive behind creating such a list? Emails revealed in a hearing during the legal challenge by the Good Law Project to the direct award of PPE contracts show civil servants raising the alarm that they were drowning in VIP requests from political connections that did not have the correct certification or could not pass due diligence. One email showed a civil servant warning that, when VIPs jump to the front of the queue, there is a knock-on effect on the remaining offers of help. Why were these civil servants ignored? Who within the UK Government thought they knew better? This is not scaremongering; the facts exist if we are prepared to look for them.
In February, the Prime Minister falsely claimed that details of all PPE contracts awarded by the Government had been published and were on the record. A few weeks later, a Cabinet Office Minister doubled down on the Prime Minister’s statement, claiming that he spoke accurately. Well, they were both wrong. This leads to a lack of confidence in the Government over the pandemic. It undermines the sacrifice that millions have made and it mocks the financial hardship that so many citizens throughout the UK are facing during the pandemic. A deadly pandemic should not be an opportunity for the UK Government to line the pockets of their cronies and business acquaintances, and yet the more we scrutinise the PPE contracts awarded by the UK Government, the more the questions arise. Enormous amounts of public money have been handled without any advertising or competitive tendering process.
This simply is not good enough, and we have to understand why these mistakes have been made. To protect taxpayers’ money and prevent further PPE procurement failures, we need answers. We need a public inquiry that is free from UK Government interference. Only with good procurement practice, which means learning from mistakes, can we safeguard the lives of the public and our highly valued healthcare workers, and that comes from scrutiny of and transparency from the UK Government.

James Cartlidge: It is kind of a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan). His tieless, sedentary, relaxed demeanour contrasted somewhat with the demeanour of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who I admire and respect, because when I intervened on him and raised the issue of the very widespread levels of  covid currently pertaining in Scotland, it is fair to say that he did not react with what I would describe as calm statesmanship.
Only two days ago, The Scotsman, no less, had as one of its headlines the question, “Why does Scotland have the highest covid rates in Europe?” That is a fundamental question.

Owen Thompson: indicated dissent.

James Cartlidge: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene and defend that, he is more than welcome to the chance. He will not defend it; well, there is a surprise. [Interruption.] Come on then, why does Scotland have the highest rates in Europe?

Owen Thompson: Of course, The Scotsman is well known to be a great supporter of the Scottish National party; the hon. Gentleman might want to have a look at that. The Scottish Government do not have control of our borders. The delta variant has come in and has created so many of these cases. That is outwith the control of the Scottish Government, who are doing everything they possibly can to bring them down.

James Cartlidge: That is unbelievable. Scotland has the highest covid rates in Europe. The SNP is governing in Scotland and it will take not a shred of responsibility for this situation.

Owen Thompson: rose—

James Cartlidge: I might give the hon. Gentleman another turn, but let us just put some facts on the table.
In June, 2,000 people in Scotland who tested positive for covid had attended a Euro 2021 event. I am no killjoy. I am quite happy that they attended. I will be attending a Euro 2021 event tonight to watch England vs Denmark. I am quite happy that many thousands of Scots made the journey to London to watch that game, in which their team performed admirably—far better than we did. The idea that the Scottish Government had no power in this matter is ludicrous. If they really thought that this variant was such a concern and that we should have closed the borders, they should not have allowed people to come down in their thousands. The evidence shows that those people are now super-spreaders of covid in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should not pretend that the Scottish Government had no power in this matter.
Having said all that, I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, who has now returned to the Chamber, for introducing this debate about covid contracts, because it gives me the opportunity to talk about two covid contracts that are far more important than all the other guff we have heard today. Those contracts are, first, the contract that this Government—indeed, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock)—signed with AstraZeneca to procure a vaccine, along with all the other ones that we took a risk on procuring before the rest of the EU. That has brought liberty to millions and saved the lives of thousands, for which we should all be grateful.
The second contract is one that we will not find a copy of, and there was no procurement for it, but again it is of fundamental importance: it is the social contract that exists between the Government and the governed  on the basis of when we are expected to give up our precious rights because an emergency exists and when—the key question for me—those rights should be returned because the emergency has passed: a fundamental point given the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday.
The first contract was the generic process through which the UK Department of Health and Social Care negotiated contracts for those vaccines and delivered them in a way exceeding almost all other major nations, delivering millions and millions of doses. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) for saying in his intervention that that was the one thing the Government got right, but, boy, that one thing is more important than anything else: it is the way out of the mess; it is the way we get out of lockdown; it is the ways we save millions of lives. And it is not just lives in the United Kingdom that are being saved; it is not just lives in every corner of this precious Union. The AstraZeneca vaccine contract was negotiated so it would be produced at cost. The significance of that enormous contractual point is that the vaccine has been spread around the developing world. We have seen 400 million Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccines go into the arms of the poorest in the world. We should be incredibly proud of that. This Government have an incredibly honourable record in what has passed.
Covid was one of the greatest crises the world has faced; it was completely unprecedented, and every time we have had to make a choice we have been between a rock and a hard place, but the only way out of it, as we all knew, was through vaccines, and we made the right call at the right time, which no other Government in Europe made at that point, and we should be proud of that contract, and it is far more important than all the other stuff mentioned today.
On the second point, the social contract, this is my first opportunity to respond to the enormous announcement we heard on Monday—one I am so grateful for—that we will be returning to normal, restoring our precious freedoms. I believe in the social contract; it is implicit—we all have our own interpretation of it—but at its heart must be the idea that Government have certain powers but they can only use them in exceptional circumstances, if those circumstances are truly an emergency.
Tonight, as I said, thousands—millions—of people around part of the Union will be going to watch a football match. They will be crowded in pubs. The idea that we are still in an emergency is for the birds, and that is because of medical science, and I am profoundly grateful; it is because of the first part of the contract that I spoke about, but because of that we must start taking decisions that restore freedom and return this country back to normal.
I understand that some people are nervous, because I have had emails from constituents who voted in all ways for all parties—and in all ways in the referendum, in case anyone tries to make that link. Some people are still nervous; they worry and think we should still have to wear masks after 19 July and that the Government should still keep measures on. I have no idea where the Labour party stands on this; as far as I can see, they want us to remain in lockdown, but, as the Prime Minister said, if not now, when? Let me answer that: if not now, it is never, because the whole point of the social contract is that if we allow the state to keep that power for too long, it will not come back. The default  disposition of the state must be that its citizens are free and that they are only not free in exceptional circumstances, and I believe those circumstances have now passed, and that is because of the vaccine; there are still high numbers of cases, but they are generally not resulting in significant ill health, and because of that we can unlock this lock- down.

Alistair Carmichael: For the record, I agree with a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says with regard to the social contract, but if his analysis is that we are genuinely out of the end of the emergency period, then surely the same question—if not now, when?—should be applied in respect of the start of the inquiry?

James Cartlidge: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and that is a fair question. My own view is that to most of my constituents the question of how soon the time comes when, for instance, they can sing in a choir in a church or go to a nightclub or gather inside with family and friends and loved ones without fearing that they are breaking the law, is more important than how soon the Westminster bubble can get excited about something that will take months and months and months and be pored over by legal people and many others.

Alec Shelbrooke: rose—

James Cartlidge: I was going to conclude, but I cannot resist my right hon. Friend; he spoke so well earlier, so as a prize I will let him intervene on me.

Alec Shelbrooke: Well there you go—everybody is a winner. Just to expand on the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has just made, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that now is the time that we should come out of the restrictions, and things are moving to a close, but they are not over yet, because we have to get the autumn booster programme right. I would rather that that was properly in place before we move on to inquiries.

James Cartlidge: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I hope he will be writing to our brilliant new Health Secretary to make that point to him.
Let me conclude by saying this. We ask ourselves when those freedoms will return and when the Government will do their part of the social contract and say, “The worst has passed, so it’s fair that you should now be able to do those things you used to do in normal life.” The answer is when those first contracts have delivered—the ones we signed with those companies, such as AstraZeneca and Pfizer, that have delivered this amazing vaccine programme that has benefited every part of the UK and every part of the world.
Every country in the UK has played a role in that. It has been a true feat of the Union, and we should be proud of it, because we are stronger together as a Union. Instead of falling back on narrow nationalism and bitterness, we stand together with a positive agenda. We have done the right thing. We have delivered an amazing vaccine programme. We have brought freedom, we have brought hope, and we look forward to better times ahead.

Joanna Cherry: If I may, I am going to return to the subject of the motion, which is about methods of scrutiny of the United Kingdom Government.
It has been clear from the outset of the current Prime Minister’s term of office that this is a Tory Government who abhor scrutiny. Shortly after he took office, the Prime Minister tried to shut down Parliament completely. He did so because he was finding its scrutiny of his Government’s hapless progress towards Brexit tiresome. But it is Parliament’s job to scrutinise, and no matter how tiresome hon. Members on the Government Benches may find the subject of the debate, it is actually rather important.
I say to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) that I suspect that his constituents, like mine, also care about how their hard-earned money is spent by his Government. They are rightly concerned because two court cases so far—there are others in the pipeline—have revealed that there are major question marks over whether this Government have abused their privilege to line the pockets of their mates.
This Parliament, when it was unlawfully prorogued, sat again only because of the intervention of the courts. That is an indication of how important the rule of law is, and one of the many reasons why the UK Government want to reduce both the scope and the availability of judicial review.
An unlawfully prorogued Parliament is dangerous for democracy, but so is a supine Parliament, and this Parliament is, frankly, a shadow of its former self. Regulations impinging on our basic civil liberties during the covid crisis have been rushed through with the minimum of parliamentary debate. It is not just urgent business regarding covid that this Government treat in a cursory fashion in this Parliament. Earlier this week, we saw a Bill with major implications for civil liberties—including the civil liberties of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community, who are protesting outside Parliament this afternoon—go through without proper debate or scrutiny because of the ridiculously short time that the Government allocated to hundreds of new clauses and amendments.
The brutal fact is that this Government do not like evidence-based policy making. In fact, they do not like evidence full stop. They like to run the country and the four nations of this Union free from scrutiny or accountability. They like to do so based on their little Britain, me first ideology and the personal ambition of Ministers—Ministers who have not dared to show their face in the House this afternoon—who look only to their mates for assistance, in return for handsome remuneration and keeping records minimal.
The way in which the Government have handled the emergency covid-19 contracts typifies that approach. The sad thing for British parliamentary democracy is that it is only through judicial processes instigated by concerned citizens acting through the Good Law Project that the full scale of this Government’s chicanery has come to light. So far, the Good Law Project has brought two successful legal challenges against the Government’s handling of pandemic-related procurement, but there are quite a few more in the pipeline, and I suspect there will be more than two successes to come. The two successes so far have established that both the former  Health Secretary and the current—for now—Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster acted unlawfully. That is a really serious matter, and we would be failing in our duty as an Opposition if we did not bring it to the Floor of the House.
Over and over again, we have heard representatives of the Government try to argue that in the case of the Good Law Project v. Minister for the Cabinet Office, the Court did not find the Government guilty of any actual bias. That is a total red herring, however. The Good Law Project did not seek a finding of actual bias; it sought a finding of apparent bias, which is a well-understood legal term. The test for apparent bias in the law of England, and indeed that of Scotland, is whether the
“circumstances would lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility, or a real danger,”
that the decision maker was biased. That is the test that the Court applied.
Looking at the contract awarded by the Cabinet Office, the Court found that a fair-minded and informed observer would conclude that there was a real possibility that the Government had awarded a significant contract to a company on the basis of bias. In layman’s terms, that means that the Court found that the Cabinet Office awarded a lucrative contract on the basis of favouritism. Even in the middle of a crisis, that is illegal. It is illegal because that money is not the Government’s, but the taxpayer’s. It is my constituents’ money; it is the money of the constituents of the hon. Member for South Suffolk; and it is the money of all our constituents.
These court processes have brought to light emails that would never otherwise have got into the public domain. These emails show that the much-maligned newspaper The Guardian newspaper and openDemocracy were right last year when they alleged that there was institutional cronyism at the heart of the British Government.

Alistair Carmichael: I very much share the hon. and learned Lady’s analysis of the work of openDemocracy and the Good Law Project. On the subject of emails that are only now coming into the public domain, does she agree that intervening to delay the publication of data relating to care home deaths in Scotland, as a story in The Scotsman indicates that Fiona Hyslop did, was, at the very least, ill advised?

Joanna Cherry: I am not aware of the detail of that allegation, but, like the right hon. Gentleman, I was elected by my constituents—for my sins—to come to Westminster to scrutinise the actings of the British Government. Just earlier this year, a whole bunch of MSPs were elected to scrutinise the actings of the Scottish Government, and that is for them to do. Today, I am focusing on this Government.
The point I want to make—I am coming to a close, because I know others want to speak—is that the sunlight that these two judicial reviews have shone on the Government’s back-door dealings shows why a judge-led inquiry is so important. Even when this Government lose in court, they cannot tell the truth about the reasons why they lost. That is why the power of a judge-led inquiry to compel witnesses and the production of documents will be so important. Not telling the truth, or indeed not telling the whole truth when on oath is a very serious matter. In a judge-led inquiry, doing so would have the sorts of repercussions that  ought to make most people—even in this Government—think twice. Witnesses are far less likely to get away with prevarication and obfuscation under questioning from lawyers, supervised by a judge. An approach to government that involves saying, “The cat ate the paper trail” or, “My redaction pen is my trusty shield” will not cut it in a judge-led inquiry. Obstructing judicial orders for documents constitutes contempt of court, and experience shows that that threat in a judge-led inquiry often brings to light records that would otherwise have found their way to the virtual shredder.
There is something wrong with British democracy, in that a Government elected by only 43.6% of the UK-wide vote can rule like a dictatorship, treating this Parliament as an inconvenience. Seen from Scotland, the situation is even worse: this Government have no mandate in Scotland, and the party that does have a mandate—the Scottish National party—is frequently treated with contempt in this House. In the past few days, we found out what most of us already suspected: the Prime Minister has so little respect for democracy in Scotland that he wants to close Scotland’s Parliament down. He does not need to worry too much about this Westminster Parliament, because he has already emasculated it.
The rule of law is our only hope. That is what the Good Law Project’s successful cases show: the only way that we can get to the truth of what this lot have been up to is by litigation and a judge-led inquiry. No wonder they are so desperate to limit the scope and availability of judicial review, and no wonder they fear a judge-led inquiry.

Lee Rowley: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I start by saying something with which I hope most Members can agree: I welcome the announcement of a public inquiry and I am glad that the Government are committed to learning the lessons from one. After the most unprecedented time of our lives, when there was no prior institutional memory of what was likely to happen and the risk calculation suggested that a pandemic based on coronavirus was extremely unlikely, we none the less need to learn lessons from what we have gone through and work out how, if there is ever a future pandemic, which I hope there never will be, we ensure that we approach it differently. We must also try to learn lessons from a wider community, society and government perspective.
If we all agree with the concept of a public inquiry, that there are lessons to be learned and reviews that need to happen, and that we need to understand how to work better in future, what do we disagree on? Why are we here, other than for another debate to push forward the suggestion of Scottish independence, in all but another name? The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), who is no longer in his place, said clearly that he wishes to see a public inquiry this year; the first obvious thing on which we disagree, then, is the question of when. I acknowledge that there are arguments for both—I understand and accept that there is a logic to a quick inquiry and a logic to a longer one—but to me the basic premise is that an inquiry should have the opportunity to review what has happened calmly, and not while in the middle of or even near the challenges, or while we run the risk of those challenges coming back. That does not seem to be an inappropriate approach to take.
We have obviously made a huge amount of progress in recent months in terms of resuming normal life and hopefully being able to move back to what we did previously when we get to 19 July, but it remains the case—I presume that, when we pull back all the hyperbole and political machinations, everyone in the Chamber would accept this—that we are not necessarily absolutely and completely out of the woods yet, and throughout the winter a huge amount of work is going to have to be undertaken to make sure that we hold the line and do not go back to lockdowns and the like, to which we do not want to go back. With that in mind, I simply do not understand how we could conclude, on the balance of risk and the weight of evidence, that the inquiry should start immediately, or nearly immediately, when that would almost be guaranteed to take capacity out of our ability to prevent or reduce the chances of any problems over the coming winter. I think most average men and women on the street would accept that.
The second thing on which I fundamentally disagree—or on which those on the Government and Opposition Benches seem to disagree—is how cautious and careful we want to be about the conclusions we draw. I want to learn lessons from this pandemic; it is clear that there are lessons to be learned. I want the Government to improve and to be as effective and as efficient as they can be in terms of their procurement and processes—I say that as somebody who served on the Public Accounts Committee for 18 months in the previous Parliament and saw lots of examples of where we need to improve—but we forget the context of last year, simply to score political points, at our peril.
On procurement, the hon. Member for Inverclyde said that any junior procurement officer would understand from day one exactly how they should approach this. Well, any junior procurement officer would understand from day one that the circumstances of last March and April were entirely extraordinary and are unlikely to be repeated. The concept of procurement is to ensure a process that takes time to get a satisfactory outcome, but if we do not have that time then we have to accept that we are undertaking a prioritisation exercise that pits time against outcome.
If there are people on these Benches, including the hon. Member for Inverclyde, who genuinely think we should have gone through the process of tender, submissions, reviews, notices of publications, cool-off periods, mobilisations and all the things that so many of us who have operated either in local government or in this place for many years know about and understand—we understand the amount of time it takes to get through them—then they should come to this Chamber right now and argue that in March and April last year we should have put out a series of call to tenders for things we needed in our hospitals, our care homes and across our society. That was simply not proportionate or reasonable.

Joanna Cherry: I do not think anyone is suggesting that there should not have been an emergency contract tendering process. What people are suggesting is that there should not have been bias in who the contracts were awarded to. That is what the courts said.

Lee Rowley: I am so grateful for the hon. and learned Lady’s intervention. She just spent about two minutes talking to this Chamber about the difference between bias and apparent bias, and she has just conflated the two points to make a political point.
On the need to be cautious and careful in the conclusions we have drawn, I just say calmy and gently to Members that there were opportunities for two approaches last year, and we should be very careful about drawing a conclusion on one that would not have put us in the best place to deal with the problems we were seeing last spring in an already very difficult circumstance.
Finally, what we clearly and obviously disagree with is the utility of the inquiry. All those who are calling for the inquiry to be brought forward and asking for additional scrutiny, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) rightly went on about, do not actually seem to want to scrutinise things or to be that interested in the evidence, because they have made their decisions already. The level of hyperbole, smear, rumour, gossip and assertion in this debate, from the moment it was started in that unseemly way by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, shows that they are not interested in having a cool, calm and collected discussion about how we learn lessons, make things better and ensure the inquiry puts us in a better place if we are ever to suffer this or something similar again. They have decided what their answer is. They know what the outcome is. They know what the conclusion will be, and I certainly disagree with them on that basic premise.
Should lessons be learned? Yes, absolutely. Should an inquiry happen? Definitely. Should we do the exact opposite of what the SNP and to a lesser extent Labour have done and not seek to predetermine the outcome before we draw conclusions? I would certainly think that that was relatively sensible. Do I expect problems to be found and that things will need to be done better next time? Of course I do. That is the point of an inquiry. Will we, in a mature political democracy, acknowledge the difficulties of last spring in simply trying to ensure we had the things we needed at a time that we were never expecting and that it was never reasonable to assume would happen? Well, I certainly would, and I hope, in a cool, calm and collected way, that some of those who have engaged in hyperbole in this debate will acknowledge that too when things are not quite as political as this debate has been. Should we play political games with this? No, we should not. The one thing I agree about with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber is that these are serious matters. They deserve to be treated with seriousness as a result.

Alistair Carmichael: I am pleased that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) took us back to the position pertaining to March last year, because that is a very important piece of context for this whole debate. It informs the decisions we took then: what we knew about the likely course of the pandemic and how much, in fact, we now know was probably guesswork. I will return to that, because I think it is an important piece of context for the decisions that this House took then   and the accountability we are now entitled to demand of Government for the exercise of the powers that this House gave them at that time. Effectively, we gave them the powers on trust.
My right hon. and hon. Friends will support the motion in a Division; however, by way of clarification, we will do so because of the words that SNP Members have put in it, not necessarily because of many of the arguments that they have advanced in support of it. The inquiry requires to be early. There is no real justification for a delay until the spring of next year. The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) spoke about the social contract. As I said to him at the time, I very much share his analysis. In fact, it is because of that social contract, which essentially comes down to the relationship between the citizen and the state, that an early and thorough, but not overly lengthy, inquiry is absolutely necessary.
To go back to the spirit of March 2020, there was a genuine sense of national endeavour. It was a rare moment in public life, because there was a sense that—in that much misused and overused phrase—we were “all in this together”. It pains me to say that many of the things that we have seen and heard, and that we have discussed today, have done so much to damage and diminish that sense of national endeavour. The earliest possible clarity and resolution of these things—to pick up the words of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, the earliest opportunity to decide what is hyperbole and what is hard fact—matters for our politics as a whole.
I was here when the House voted to go to war in Iraq. I believed then, and have believed since, that that was a major strategic error in the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. That was in 2003. It took until 2016 for us to get the Chilcot inquiry report—all 12 volumes and executive summary of it. I do not think that it is hyperbole to say that by the time the report came the moment had somewhat passed. Personally, I still use that report—six volumes act as a laptop stand, and the other six ensure that the door will not blow shut if I open the window. That, I am afraid, is the danger that faces us, and it is why we have to have an early start to the inquiry. If the need for restrictions has passed, as the Prime Minister and so many of his Back Benchers have told us, surely the time has come for us to start that work.
I am sympathetic to the views of those who act as scientific and medical advisers, but the inquiry, when it comes, will have to deal with so much more than just the public health aspects. We need a bit of sympathetic and strategic planning of the time to be taken. The matter that we are talking about today—covid contracts—is exactly the sort of thing that could be dealt with in the early stages of the inquiry, which is why we should be able to start it.

Christian Wakeford: On the comments that the right hon. Gentleman makes about some of the aspects that could be considered now, yes, we are coming towards the end of the pandemic, but we are still in it. Considering that some fiscal measures will go on until at least September, does he not agree that we should wait until we can review the pandemic as a whole and then make meaningful conclusions, as opposed to trying to make quick ones now? Surely we do it right or we do it quickly.

Alistair Carmichael: Actually no: it is not an either/or. I think it is eminently possible to have a quick and dirty analysis. In fact, given that we may be looking at further waves, vaccine resistance and the rest of it, I think it is very important that we do have an early analysis of some of the public health aspects. However, that should not be a barrier to a fuller and more thorough analysis of things when we have the full facts available to us. As I say, other public inquiries have proceeded in that way, and I see no reason why this one should not.
The reason why I think it is particularly important that we have an early start is that, as we read in many of the newspapers, the Government’s intention is possibly to go to the country in a general election as early as 2023. An inquiry that starts now might have a fighting chance of bringing at least preliminary decisions to this House and to the public before that point. One that starts in the spring of next year—we know that spring is a moveable feast in Government calendars—will almost certainly still be doing its work when it comes to a general election in 2023, if that is when we get it.
The point is that, in March last year, this House gave a lot of power to the Executive—unprecedented amounts of power. Those powers for the most part, actually, have been unused, but still the Government insist on holding on to them, because that is in the nature of Governments. Once Parliament gives power to the Executive, the Executive are always very reluctant to give it back. We can go back as far as the granting of the power to force people to carry identity cards in 1939. We might have thought that that would finish in 1945, but in fact it was the early 1950s before a court ruled that the emergency had passed and the carrying of identity cards was no longer necessary.
I also want this inquiry to look at what the decision-making process was to ensure that we continued with these emergency powers, because I would suggest that the moment had probably passed in September of last year and had almost certainly passed by March of this year when we renewed them for the second time. So there are questions that can be answered now. They must be answered now, and it is in the interests of politics and the standing of this place that they should be answered now.

Eleanor Laing: I hope that Members will now keep their speeches to under five minutes, because then everybody will get a chance to speak.

Jerome Mayhew: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be as quick as I can. I am just sorry I am not with you in person today.
Opposition day debates are a precious opportunity to direct the subject of debate and focus national attention on areas of utmost concern to the country, yet today the SNP has used one of these few debates to repeat last week’s attempt by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to smear mud on the Government’s handling of PPE contracts back in 2020, hoping that some of it will stick. When we are still facing momentous decisions on how to handle covid, and with Scotland right now, as we have heard, being  the covid capital of Europe, that tells us a lot about the SNP. With speech after speech starting with unsubstantiated accusations of sleaze and ending with the goal of separation,  it feels as though it is more important for the SNP to build up the UK Government as some kind of bogeyman figure to boost support for separation than to try to make Scotland better, so here we go once again.
The motion asserts that
“the Government has failed to give full details of the process”
for granting
“emergency covid-19 contracts”,
which is just not correct. SNP Members should look at regulation 32(2)(c) of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which sets out the power used by the Government. Early on, the Cabinet Office published guidance on how procurement should take place in this framework, referring to the need to keep proper records of decisions; transparency and publication requirements; and the need to achieve value for money and to use good commercial judgement during any direct award. This guidance was published, and it is still on the gov.uk website. It is there for SNP Members to see, but they must know that because, after all, it was exactly the same approach that they used themselves in Scotland. There was one difference: in Scotland, the SNP Government tried to remove the ability of the public to question their procurement decisions by excluding freedom of information requests. They were foiled only by a parliamentary revolt. When it comes to their own record in government, this debate tells us a lot about the SNP.
As for the Government not giving details of the procurement process, SNP Members well know that the PPE offer was put through the same process by civil servants, working round the clock to save lives, no matter where the offer came from. The NAO made it clear that
“we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
I hold my hands up, like so many others today. At the height of the emergency, I was personally inundated with offers to help from random businesses in my constituency. I have no idea whether they were Conservative, Liberal Democrat or Labour supporters, but I am pretty confident that they were not Scottish National party supporters. I passed them all on to the VIP inbox in the same way as other MPs, including Ministers, and thank goodness we did. One was from those at the Black Shuck distillery in Fakenham. They looked up the recipe for hand sanitiser on the World Health Organisation website. They made it themselves and donated it to local medical facilities—at least they wanted to. Was I wrong to help them to get around regulatory difficulties and pass that offer on?
Mistakes were definitely made—probably lots of them. After all, a lot of decisions had to be made very quickly and there was no precedent to follow. However, as we have heard, the Boardman review reported on that back in December 2020 and it made 28 recommendations on how the system should be improved. The Government welcomed those recommendations and agreed to implement them in full. SNP Members already know that. It feels as though they are less interested in the facts than in creating this image of a UK bogeyman in Westminster. They are less interested in improving government in Scotland than in their obsession with separation. This debate teaches us that.

Gavin Newlands: It is nearly 50 years ago, long before I was born, incidentally—[Interruption.] It was a good decade before, I say to colleagues shouting to the contrary. It is nearly 50 years since the Poulson scandal began. It was a tawdry affair with politicians, civil servants, local government and industry all enmeshed in a network of bribery and corruption that rocked the establishment through the early ’70s, yet the amounts involved, even allowing for inflation, are miniscule when compared with the moneys that have flowed through the UK Government and been disbursed to the chosen ones.
Poulson went to prison for three years for paying around £500,000 in bribes to secure building contracts. Last November’s National Audit Office reports alone looked into £17.3 billion-worth of covid-related contracts, while the most recent total is over £31 billion. Those reports painted a picture of procurement policies that were simply ignored and skirted, where managing risk went out the window. They also lay bare the golden trough that was laid on for those fortunate enough to enjoy VIP status and the ear of Ministers or Government officials. Those able to use that high-priority lane were 10 times more likely to be successful in securing a contract than those unlucky enough to have to do things by the book.
Giving favoured companies and individuals VIP status and allowing them to jump over procedures put in place for mere mortals was a happy event for one pub landlord, who counted the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), as one of his regulars—so regular that he appears to have had the former Minister’s mobile number and sent him a message selflessly offering his firm’s services. A few weeks later, those services were indeed taken up by a medical products distributor involved in supplying the NHS. At least that particular individual appears to have done nicely over recent months, because not everyone these days can afford a £1.3 million country house.
The National Audit Office report on Government procurement in the first months of the pandemic makes for damning reading. The word “inadequate” appears too often for comfort. At various points, the NAO mentioned that there was
“insufficient documentation on key decisions”,
and that
“contracts…have not been published in a timely manner”,
as well as
“diminished public transparency…the lack of adequate documentation”,
and so on, and so on.
No one doubts the exceptional—perhaps unique—situation that the Government found themselves in last year. It is clear that emergency procedures are justified in a public health emergency. Indeed, we support them and have used them in Edinburgh, but that does not give Ministers and the Government the right to excuse themselves from basic norms of transparency and accountability and throw billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money—or rather, future taxpayers’ money, given the levels of borrowing needed—at companies who, in many cases, turned out to make Del Boy or even Arthur Daley look legitimate.

Sarah Owen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gavin Newlands: With apologies, I will not, just because of time.
Some £108 million was given to a company with net assets of £18,000, another £108 million was given to a company small enough to be exempt from publishing full accounts, and £252 million was given to a company advised by an individual who was also an adviser to the UK Board of Trade. There is no allegation that those companies have done anything wrong themselves. Many would say that their job is to make money—and that they certainly did. But the Government’s job was not to enrich obscure micro-companies with nine-figure sums, but to equip our public services with the equipment to do their job safely and to ensure value for money in the process.
In each of the cases, the Government have fought tooth and nail to hide behind secrecy and use the pandemic as an excuse for ignoring the norms of transparency and accountability that are there for a very good reason. That abandonment of transparency was then used by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to commission polling into attitudes to the UK Union at a cost of more than half a million pounds.
Like most people dealing with the effects of the pandemic, I struggle to see why polling aimed entirely at promoting the Government’s political agenda can in any way be classed as emergency procurement. It is shabby, disreputable and a complete misuse of what should be a carefully used and monitored short-circuiting of normal procurement rules.
It is also just a little ironic that the Conservative party, which almost hourly accuses the SNP and others of being obsessed with the constitution, demonstrates its own myopic obsession with the Union by using the cover of a national and international health emergency to do so.
No one is suggesting that routes should not be available for the Government in times of real crisis to act swiftly and decisively outside what the norms are during relative periods of calm. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and we were and are still living in extraordinary times. But the evidence that has emerged—forced, bit by bit, out of the Government, against their will at every step of the way—shows how the measures have been abused by a cabal who appear no longer to care about probity and transparency, but instead to have been caught in the act of shifting millions out of the back door when no one was looking.
The Prime Minister has promised a “full, proper public inquiry” into the covid pandemic, which of course I welcome. But as others have said, there is no need to wait. That inquiry must also include a full and open examination of the Government’s procurement policies, with every one of these deals open to public scrutiny. Those who have attempted throughout the past 16 months to hide their dealings from Parliament and from the public must be called to account for their actions and asked to explain why.
There is a way for Scots to be rid of these spivs, speculators—

Andrew Bowie: indicated dissent.

Gavin Newlands: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he is more than welcome—if he is very brief.

Andrew Bowie: I might finish the hon. Gentleman’s speech for him because I am quite sure that I know what his next line will be. I will let him continue to finish his speech.

Gavin Newlands: I am very grateful for that intervention; that was very useful. But the hon. Gentleman’s groans were indeed correct: I am going to talk about our way out of this, which is through independence. No number of attempts from the hon. Gentleman or the Front Benchers in front of him to muddy the waters by briefing on changing the voting franchise will stop it from coming. At the end of the day, the UK Government’s actions such as those we are debating today, when combined with Brexit, make Scottish independence absolutely inevitable. In their dying days, and as we witness what counts as a Government in this place, the time cannot come quickly enough.

Peter Gibson: I am pleased to be called to speak in today’s debate about the steps that the Government have been taking in the last 16 months to procure lifesaving equipment and PPE for our incredible frontline staff across the country. This debate is nothing more than another attempt by the SNP to trot out its same old line seeking to smear the Government, pursue its separatist agenda and obscure attention from being focused on its own failures.
In Scotland, the SNP-led Government have been using the same procurement process for protective equipment but have failed to launch their own inquiry into the Scottish Government’s handling of the pandemic. Measures that this Government have taken have undoubtedly sped up Whitehall bureaucracy while operating without the need to break, suspend or change pre-existing legislation on contract awards and procurement.
It is testament to the speed at which the Government acted and delivered PPE that even while the virus was raging and there was a global PPE shortage, every single recommendation for the procurement of PPE went through an independent eight-stage process verified by independent civil servants. That approach has meant that the UK Government have been able to procure more than 22,000 extra ventilators, 11 billion items of personal protective equipment in England and 32 billion items for the whole of the Union, protecting those workers on the frontlines of both the NHS and social care. It is therefore no wonder that the approach taken to procurement by the UK Government has been used across the world. Japan, New Zealand and Finland have used similar approaches, while the devolved Administrations in Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast use the same techniques and purposes
I welcome the fact that the Government have been open and transparent with their procurement process, with the independent National Audit Office acknowledging the Government’s exceptional work while ensuring that Ministers were not involved in procurement processes and had “properly declared their interests”. Meanwhile, the Scottish audit found that the SNP had failed to prepare for the pandemic and was paying tens of millions more than normal for its PPE supplies.
Today’s debate is nothing less than a poorly thought out move by the SNP to create more soundbites by failing to address its poor handling of the pandemic.  Far from intending to help save lives and protect the most vulnerable, the SNP is seeking to distract attention from a disproportionate rise in cases and deaths in Scotland and its opposition to a Scottish inquiry into the handling of the pandemic.
This Conservative Government, thank goodness, are getting on with the fastest roll-out of the vaccine that has been seen across Europe while laying the groundwork for their own in-depth, independent inquiry in spring 2022, delivering for our whole United Kingdom.

Christian Wakeford: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me earlier than expected.
First, I pay special tribute to frontline workers who have worked tirelessly at the forefront of fighting this deadly virus. Our nation is indebted to all those doctors, nurses and other health workers who rose above the limits of their duty, saved lives and ensured the availability of essential services. However, I want to put on the record my thanks to one particular nurse who has never been mentioned in this place—my identical twin brother. He has been on a covid ward for the duration of this pandemic and has been unable to have a vaccine because he is allergic to them. He really has been at the forefront of this pandemic; I am proud of everything that he has done, and I cannot say so enough. People have said to me a number of times, “You have an identical twin. Who is the good one and who is the evil one?” I am a Conservative MP and he is a nurse, so I will let everyone else do the math of that one.
The public have gone above and beyond during this pandemic—whether it be brewers and distilleries making vital hand sanitisers, chemical works such as ITAC, which I visited last year, fundamentally changing its own production methods to make hand sanitisers, or firms such as Vitafoam in Heywood and Middleton, which has gone from making beds to making face masks. Everyone has fundamentally changed the way that they work, live and, in some cases, even eat, but we are all getting to the point where we are sick of Zoom and Teams. Thankfully, the way that we socialise is coming back to the forefront and we are now able to have a cautious hug, a cautious handshake and, heaven forbid, a pint over the football tonight—and it is coming home.
At the onset of the crisis, against a backdrop of unprecedented global demand, there was a real fear that we would run out of vital equipment. That is why we acted quickly to secure the medical equipment and the PPE needed for our frontline workers, securing more than 22,000 additional ventilators and delivering over 11.7 billion items of PPE to frontline workers. We have moved heaven and earth, as any responsible Government would do, to keep people safe, and we make no apology for acting at pace in securing the lifesaving equipment needed to save lives.
In addition, this Government have secured a portfolio of 507 million doses of the eight most promising vaccines. We are not only vaccinating this country but making sure that we donate 100 million vaccines to the most needy across the globe, and I am immensely proud of that. The UK has stormed ahead with its vaccination  programme, which is why we are able to unlock and why, hopefully, we are able to go back to freedom. Despite that, the SNP wanted the UK to join the EU’s vaccines scheme, with the SNP’s Mental Wellbeing and Social Care Minister, Kevin Stewart, slamming our decision to opt out of it, calling it “lunacy” and “irresponsible”. We need only look to our neighbours on the continent to see that we were right. By contrast, the latest figures show that, as a result of our independent vaccine programme, 86% of people in the UK have received their first dose of a vaccine and 64% are fully vaccinated, having received their second dose.
We have one of the best testing regimes in the world, with the capacity to deliver over 1 million tests a day. Instead of the Opposition attacking our efforts, our achievements should be celebrated as an example of what we can do as a truly United Kingdom.
The Opposition’s claims about conflicts of interest in PPE contracts have been thrown out by multiple independent investigations, which have failed to find any conflicts of interest whatsoever in PPE procurement by Ministers. Indeed, the deputy chief medical officer said that an inquiry would be an unnecessary “extra burden” that would distract from the vaccine roll-out.
The SNP Government themselves decided to award over £500 million of contracts without competition, so perhaps the SNP should be keeping their own house in order rather than attacking our Government.
Transparency is fundamental to trust, and I will say that we have not got everything right. If I were to say otherwise, I would be lying—not just inadvertently misleading the House—which is why a fully independent public inquiry, starting next spring, will ensure the pandemic response is robustly examined. It will show where we got things right and where, unfortunately, we got things wrong, and we have got some things wrong during this pandemic because we are human. Hindsight is 20/20 and, in an unprecedented pandemic, people make the decisions they think are right at the time, and they can only be judged afterwards.
Furthermore, we have strengthened transparency around the awarding of Government contracts by bringing in new rules on Government procurement, so we can make sure that Government contracts are fully transparent and offer true value for money. We will also be publishing more information about Government contracts, so all details on the procurement process are in the public domain.
The Opposition have used every opportunity throughout the pandemic to play politics, from accusing Kate Bingham of cronyism to describing test and trace as money wasted. Labour and the SNP are more interested in sniping from the sidelines, but this Conservative Government have delivered for the people of this country. That is why we are able to reopen the economy and the country, and it is why we are hopefully moving forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. There are five more Back Benchers wanting to contribute, as two have dropped out. The wind-ups will start at precisely 3.59 pm, with two contributions of eight minutes. The vote is then expected at 4.15 pm. Could Members please be mindful of the length of their contributions?

Owen Thompson: I associate myself with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), particularly in relation to the work being done by his twin brother and all those working on the frontline, for which we all share a great deal of respect.
I am delighted that my party has made time available today to discuss the scandal of the way in which covid-19 emergency contracts have been dished out by this Government. We have seen the Prime Minister make an artform of stripping away the processes that protect fairness and transparency, all under the cover of the pandemic. The justification has tended to be the same across the board—it has to be done in a hurry—but how far can that stretch?
I have no doubt that procuring goods at speed and scale was a challenge, and there are clearly things that had to be done to make sure it could be undertaken, but justifying the bypassing of due process in the early days is not a catch-all or an excuse for the growing list of questionable contract decisions that were not open to a competitive tender process.
The sense of right and wrong did not go out of the window when the covid virus came in. There must always be time for proper scrutiny of money spent from the public purse, and the Government must always be available to answer for their decisions. Perhaps the Government will tell us today whether the VIP channels that were so roundly criticised earlier in the pandemic are still operating today, who knew about them, who was on them or where we can find out more about them. It is only through the National Audit Office that we know the fast-track channels existed and that they vastly increased the chances of successfully landing a contract. Of over 15,000 suppliers, just 400 went through the VIP lane and one in 10 of them received a contract, compared with 0.7% of those that went through normal channels. I have plenty of talented and deserving constituents in Midlothian who would have been delighted to have that opportunity to have a leg up through a VIP channel and get a comfy Government contract, but that door was not open to them: it stayed firmly shut, unless a person happened to rub shoulders with the right people in the corridors of power. Details of those channels were certainly not advertised in the Government’s guidance, and many people—including medical professionals with invaluable experience of the NHS—were not even aware that they existed.
There is room for a fast track; I do not deny that. If it is an emergency, we need to look at new ways of doing things, but it is absolutely absurd that having connections to a party of Government is the criterion that is required to be on that fast-track list. This should slow things down, not get a person to the front of the queue. There are too many serious allegations of cronyism coming out now for this to be simply brushed aside or written off as a mere coincidence. Transparency International UK has so far found contracts worth over £3.7 billion—one in five—between February and November 2020 that raised red flags. According to its report, the Government displayed
“apparent systemic biases in the award of PPE contracts that favoured those with political connections to the party of government in Westminster”.
There is an ever-growing roll call of examples of apparent cronyism coming from the excellent investigative journalism of organisations such as Byline Times, openDemocracy and others, and we have already seen successful litigation from the Good Law Project over delays in publishing contract award notices. The more we dig, the dirtier it looks, and the emergency excuse for bypassing due process begins to wear a little thin when it is used for contracts with little to do with frontline emergency, such as the £500,000 awarded illegally to Public First—old colleagues and pals of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Dominic Cummings, of course.
Nor does the speed argument explain those early contracts being given to companies with such little experience in the field, when a wealth of other suppliers had put offers in. Can the Government tell us now why crucial contracts for life-saving protection went to a Florida-based jewellery company, or to a wholesaler of sweets with no obvious experience of supplying PPE? What made the tiny vermin control operation PestFix, valued at just £19,000, the best-placed company to provide a vital £32 million for isolation suits, and why did the former Health Secretary’s neighbour and pub landlord get a £30 million contract for producing plastic vials following a few chats on WhatsApp? The Greensill scandal and the Dyson scandal demonstrate that this is a Government that are overseeing a culture of taxpayers’ money being dished out through informal back channels removed from public scrutiny. If the Government have nothing to hide, I would again ask why they did not back my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill in the last term of this Parliament. We accept the need for speed, but that does not mean we cannot ask questions after the event.
Week after week at business questions, I have requested Government time to debate many of these serious concerns about the openness and transparency of the Government, but those concerns are dismissed. In one response, the Leader of the House put on his best poker face and assured me that
“We have in this country one of the most honest public sectors of any country in the world.”—[Official Report, 25 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 1096.]
It is unfortunate that that does not always appear to extend to all within Government. If that is the case, the public sector is badly being let down by the Government and their culture of secrecy. This Government claim that they cannot find support for the 3 million excluded, nor can they afford to pay a decent pay rise to the NHS, yet they found a staggering, jaw-dropping £37 billion for private companies with connections to power to run a test and protect system that does not yet work properly, with consultants earning £1,000 a day. This is a system in which we now know—thanks, again, to the efforts of the Good Law Project—that yet another VIP lane existed. It is an absolute scandal.
The Government may claim that people do not care about these contracts issues because they do not affect them, but they do: people see what is going on, and they will be scunnered by it all. When faith and trust in democracy is lost, we are all lost. If the Government are innocent on all charges—except, of course, the ones on which they have already been found guilty—they need the public inquiry into covid contracts to press ahead now, not next year after the heat has gone from the  issue. We need to have clear channels through which to scrutinise Government actions and hold the Executive to account. Standards in public life are the foundation on which democratic institutions are built, and we need systems with which to root out anyone in public office who puts profit for themselves, their partners or their pals before the public good. If corruption is ignored, it will fester: the small cracks will become fissures, and the very foundations of our democracy will crumble.
The Government remain far too blasé in response to allegations of cronyism and this cannot go unchecked. Like the ancient Romans, perhaps they still believe themselves to be untouchable and answering to no one, especially not those outwith their VIP circles, but if they let the rot set in, the public will soon lose trust in their leadership. If they do not stand up for decency, democracy and high standards in public life, we may be watching our current modern-day Nero see the end.

Andrew Bowie: It is a pleasure to rise to speak in the debate this afternoon. I shall start by wishing all my English constituents, my English staff and even my English colleagues the best of luck in this evening’s semi-final. I do hope that England are successful in bringing football home to the island on which the modern game of football was created. Of course, like all the best things in the modern world, the modern game of football was invented in Scotland. Maybe next time, in Qatar in 2022, we will see the World cup going home to its real home at Hampden Park in Glasgow.
Since my election in 2017, I have become well used to the SNP’s tactic in Opposition day debates of mixing rank opportunism with righteous indignation and manufactured grievance. But today, we have seen the gall and the sheer brass neck of the Scottish National party. It takes some beating for the party in government in Scotland, the party responsible for public health north of the border, to come here to this place and put forward a motion on, of all things, covid-19 in the week when Scotland was declared by the World Health Organisation to have six of the top 10 covid hotspots in Europe.
I was now going to launch into a few well-constructed jokes about the Cabinet Secretary for Health disapparating, grabbing his invisibility cloak and using the Floo Network to get to the Harry Potter Studios in Watford. However—I mean this sincerely—everybody at all levels of all the Governments in the United Kingdom has been under immense pressure over the past year and a half, and who can begrudge any Minister in any position of responsibility taking some time to spend with their family, who have borne the brunt of the pressure they have been under? So I will refrain from attacking the Cabinet Secretary for Health, and I hope he enjoys the precious time he gets to spend with his children over the next few days.
This is not a laughing matter. Scotland is already leading the continent in terms of drugs deaths, but we are now leading it in terms of covid cases contracted, and this is putting at real risk Scotland’s own freedom day on 9 August. This is under a party whose leader claimed that the strategy north of the border was to  eradicate covid. That would be incredible; we would be the first country in the world to do it. The SNP seems to be having about as much success in achieving that aim as it does in improving educational standards in schools, meeting the R100 broadband roll-out deadline, establishing Welfare Scotland or developing a new farm payments system. No wonder it scrapped the Scottish Qualifications Authority, for if there was an examination in good government, the Scottish National party would get a “must try harder” and a big F.
The reverse Midas touch of the SNP is quite incredible to behold, but this is incredibly serious. We have heard Scottish National party Members talking this afternoon about test and trace. They call it the failing test and trace, but I think it is a world-leading test and trace system. Let us compare it to how test and protect is operating north of the border. Test and protect is operating at its slowest-ever rate, and in the week ending 27 June, only 29% of positive individuals were interviewed within 24 hours of appearing on the case management system. If we are to escape from these awful restrictions that everybody on these islands is living under, we must have a functioning test and trace system. Again, the SNP must try harder.
It is true that vaccination in Scotland for covid-19 continues apace, even if the roll-out has slowed in recent weeks, and we are of course forever grateful to our amazing NHS workers—in my case, in NHS Grampian—and to the volunteers and the armed forces for their tireless efforts and the speed at which they are building the wall of protection that will get us back to normal. But there is a certain irony that the one part of the covid response that is working well in Scotland at the minute is the part that is solely as a result of Scotland being part of our United Kingdom. It is because this UK Government took the decisions they did, moved at the pace they did and invested what and when they did that we are leading the world in terms of vaccination, allowing us to dream of a day when masks are something we save for guising at Halloween and when we need never again use that awful term “social distancing”. Not that we would know any of that from a party that is reluctant even to use the full name of our world-leading Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, should it in some way indicate that the people of Scotland are benefiting from our working together as one United Kingdom.
I could accept all that. After more than 10 years of being in Scottish politics at some level or another, I would expect all of that from a party for whom taking responsibility is anathema—indeed, I have concluded that the Scottish National party wants to take Scotland back into the EU only because, without Westminster, it needs somebody else to point the finger of blame at for its mistakes—but this motion really takes the biscuit. It takes the hypocrisy that we are so used to from the Government in Edinburgh to whole new levels—and, for me, whole new levels of incredulity.
For a party that refuses to deliver on a manifesto commitment to hold a public inquiry into covid in Scotland to come down here and call for a covid inquiry in this place, and for a party that wants to see an end to the UK, and that uses every single opportunity afforded to it to emphasise the differences between our two nations to seek to break up this country, suddenly to suggest that it would be untoward or improper for the  Scottish Government to hold their own inquiry before the UK Government did the same, is quite a change of tack, particularly when that party usually grabs any chance to show that it is leading the United Kingdom or moving faster in some way.
That party has also come here today to complain about the process for issuing emergency covid-19 contracts. As has been said, this country, along with every country and every Government in the world, was dealing with an unprecedented situation a year and a half ago. We were moving heaven and earth to protect the British people the length and breadth of our country. We know that Governments moved faster to try to protect people, because the Scottish Government did exactly the same thing. They awarded over a billion pounds in covid contracts without tender and with no competitive process, including, but not exclusively, for call centres, PPE, housing and care contracts, IT support, hand sanitiser and consultancy work.
It is astounding to hear SNP Members complain that MPs came to this place and represented to the Government companies, organisations and individuals in their constituencies who had ideas, mechanisms or inventions that could ease the pressure on the NHS and save lives. Surely Members of Parliament are supposed to represent businesses and individuals in our constituencies who could help in a crisis. That is certainly what I did when an individual caught me at a rather inopportune moment. I happened to be giving blood at Aberdeen Royal Infirmary in Foresterhill when a constituent recognised me from across the room and started telling me all about his great idea for a new ventilation system. He had me tied to the spot, I am afraid, and I was all ears. I went on to represent his company and his ideas to Ministers. I have no idea whether his idea or invention was successful, but I know that I did what I should have done and took that idea to the people who could make a difference, so that it could save lives in this United Kingdom.
Goodness me, was I quite amazed to hear SNP Members raising the use of private emails to conduct Government business? That from the Scottish National party, whose leader’s office last year advised people that the First Minister would use only her party email address and that urgent matters should be sent only to her private SNP account, not her Government account. That from the Scottish National party, whose Ministers now seem to communicate exclusively by Signal and whose use of public money to further their own political ends is blatant and routine.
The time for inquiries will come. There will undoubtedly be questions for senior members of both Governments, who were thrust into an impossible and unprecedented situation and urged to act quickly and urgently for the public good. However, this House, and indeed this country, should have no truck with, and should take no lectures in good government from, a party that is failing Scotland and failing the Scottish people and whose arrogance in power grows by the day. There is less than five years until the next Scottish election. For the sake of my country, it cannot come a day too soon.

Nigel Evans: There is less than 10 minutes left and there are three people to contribute, so—

Patricia Gibson: That’s shocking.

Nigel Evans: I did try to indicate, but please be mindful of that if we want to get everybody in.

Patricia Gibson: For someone who does not believe that this debate should be taking place, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) trundled on for 10 minutes, although it felt like much longer. He criticises the Scottish Government—a Scottish Government, of course, overwhelmingly endorsed a mere eight weeks ago—when his own party cannot even win a by-election. Good luck to it with trying to hold its position in Scotland. The people of Scotland see through it.
We have undergone the most serious health pandemic of our times. Of course, the worst is not over, but we still hope that the future continues to improve, even as so many of us continue to mourn our lost loved ones. However, during dark times—the darkest times—democratic accountability and scrutiny of Government must continue. That is perhaps even more important in dark times than in normal times, given that when the populace is distracted by seismic events that touch their lives in such personal ways, a Government who realise that may be tempted to abandon the standards so essential in public office, in the belief that the usual corners may be cut, even when the public purse is involved. During dark times, as in all times, the Government must be seen to act with the utmost probity, disinterested in their dealings and with a laser-like focus on protecting their civilians. That is exactly why the bad smell permeating deals done and contracts signed on PPE and covid is so very unfortunate.
The list of potential wrongdoing when it comes to this Government would be far too long for me to outline in a very long speech, much less such a short one. There is simply not time to go through the catalogue of serious concerns. Suffice it to say that, with NHS contract tendering; the £23 billion spent on Test and Trace; the former Prime Minister’s lobbying for Greensill Capital, which The Guardian indicated today was given access to covid loans without detailed scrutiny, with Ministers asked to “nudge” the deals “over the line”; contracts for pals; and a Government shrouded in chumocracy while 3 million people across the UK have been left with no support at all, the bad smell is overwhelming. Let us not even start again on the money spent on testing the strength of the Union, which should have been spent on fighting the pandemic. All that gives this Government’s dealings a very bad smell.
In view of all that, I can well understand the desire to delay and dither over a public inquiry into the handling of the pandemic and the subsequent desire to ensure that any of the inquiry’s findings are buried until after the next general election, but that is simply not good enough. Let us have the public inquiry now, without delay, so that people across the UK can decide for themselves whether this Government have served them well during the darkest of our times, and so that the people of Scotland can decide for themselves whether the Government on offer from Westminster are the best they deserve. We in the SNP believe that the people of Scotland deserve better and must have better, and they will when they choose their own future.

Richard Burgon: This pandemic has been a time of extreme hardship and suffering for millions of people. In my constituency in east Leeds, many have lost loved ones, and others, who were struggling to make ends meet even before this crisis, have fallen into deeper poverty. But it has been a very good crisis for some—for British billionaires, who increased their wealth by £100 billion in the last year; for outsourcing giants such as Serco, pocketing money that should have gone to our public services; and for those with friends in high places in the Conservative party who have got their hands on huge covid contracts.
The one sure-fire way to make money over the past 18 months has been to be a mate of a Tory Minister. Access to the so-called VIP lane made someone 10 times more likely to win public contracts. Ministers have been found to have broken the law with contracts. A world-leading anti-corruption body says that one in five Government covid contracts has corruption red flags. Over £800 million in covid contracts went to donors who had given the Tories £8 million in total—a very good return for those in the know, with the inside track. Those super-rich donors hand over huge funds and expect public contracts and favours to come their way in return. The Conservative party, I am afraid, is up to its neck in it.
Because the Tory party is using the system to help super-rich donors with covid contracts, it thinks that that is what other people are up to, too. We have seen a Tory MP this week implying that the British Medical Association’s medical advice to wear masks is because of lobbying from mask manufacturers, and Ministers have admitted that they are refusing proper sick pay because they think that people out there would abuse the system. Is that not telling? It is a telling insight into Ministers’ thinking: the assumption that everyone else is as dodgy and corrupt as they are—that is why Ministers think that.
Polls show that huge swathes of the population believe that the Conservative party is corrupt, and the stench of corruption has grown ever stronger through this crisis. They have been using a crisis where tens of thousands have died needlessly as a money-making scheme for their mates and their super-rich donors. The link between big money and our politics has been exposed more than ever during this crisis. Of course, many will hope to get their reward with directorships and comfortable jobs when they leave this place, but this is rotten to the core. It is undermining confidence in our democratic system and we need to put an end to it.

Nigel Evans: To resume his seat no later than 3.59 pm, I call Neale Hanvey.

Neale Hanvey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but it is distasteful to listen to the braggadocious glee from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) when he celebrates the increased rate of covid cases in Scotland—

Andrew Bowie: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on how we can correct the record, because the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and  Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) has distorted what I said only a few minutes ago? Never once did I express any glee at the record number of cases on the SNP’s hands in Scotland. I expressed my concern at what was happening in Scotland. He should withdraw that comment.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman has put it on the record.

Neale Hanvey: The Prime Minister demonstrated today a complete lack of comprehension of the fundamental principles of infection management. Kate Bingham’s achievement in bringing vaccines to market I have rightly celebrated in this place and Westminster Hall, but it is not the only game in town. The Prime Minister has bet the farm on vaccines, but the control and suppression of this virus relies on robust surveillance, treatment and control measures. All of that is at risk of being undone, with £3 billion wasted on tests that are absolutely unreliable. The Innova lateral flow device scandal presents a significant concern across three specific domains: public health, the impact on the domestic diagnostic sector, and a lack of contracting transparency and mounting concerns about chicanery.
On Monday 21 June, at the Dispatch Box, the Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), boasted that the Government were “unleashing the potential” of the constituent countries of the UK “by backing British industry”. During that contribution, he derided China for “trade-distorting practices”. The experience of the domestic diagnostic industry differs significantly from that rhetoric. During a covid briefing on 29 June hosted by the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, it was asserted that the Government’s position on the United States Food and Drug Administration’s class 1 recall of dangerous and deadly Innova tests was attributed to the FDA’s over-reliance on the manufacturer’s data. Furthermore, it was asserted that the UK Government are utilising public resources at Porton Down in efforts to disprove the Chinese manufacturer’s own data, which suggests that these tests are unsuitable for asymptomatic screening and have been ever thus, and are not endorsed as sensitive to the prevailing delta variant. On 15 March, in a tweet to UK firms Omega Diagnostics and Mologic, Lord Bethell, the Minister for innovation and public health, promised 2 million daily lateral flow—

Nigel Evans: Order. We must now come to the wind-ups. I call Stephen Flynn.

Stephen Flynn: I was sitting on the Back Benches earlier listening to a lot of the debate and deciding on how I would open my remarks on this most important of topics, and then my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar- Javed) got to her feet and rightly highlighted the Nolan principles—the seven principles of public life—with which we should all be familiar. I am sure some Conservative Members are not overly familiar with them, given their record. It made me think about what the public expect from their politicians, and the key to that is of course trust. In Scotland, in my lifetime, trust has changed in politics and politicians. The Labour party was once the panacea of politics in Scotland; it was where we all  wanted to be, but of course it then took us into an illegal war in Iraq and that trust was eroded. The Liberal Democrats had much support in Scotland and had the trust of a lot of younger people, but that trust was eroded when the coalition Government U-turned on tuition fees, something they gleefully supported.
The question of trust in the Conservatives in Scotland in my lifetime is a difficult one, because they have not won an election in Scotland since 1955. There is a particular reason for that, and it goes to the heart of the debate here today: the people of Scotland simply do not trust them, and the situation in relation to covid contracts is a perfect example of why the people of Scotland do not trust them.
We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) about the endless list of contracts awarded by the Government that have gone to their friends, family, donors and pub landlords, who have all managed to make a quick buck out of this pandemic—incidentally, I should add that that is taxpayers’ money, before Conservative Members forget. We must not break the trust that people should have in us, but Conservatives simply do not care.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said earlier when she eviscerated the Government in relation to their record on covid contracts, it is not just that these contracts have been handed out from a dodgy perspective—it is not just that they have gone to people with no expertise or to companies made up on the hoof—but that two of them have now been found to have been awarded unlawfully, and one of them in particular.
There was a particular moment in this debate when we were told that none of this was to do with Scottish independence and we should not be talking about that, but one of those contracts was awarded on the basis of polling the views of the people of Scotland and their attitudes to the constitution. Shame on Conservative Members, because that is not how public money should have been used during this pandemic. Imagine the indignation, the anger, the rightful fury of the people of Scotland if it had been the Scottish Government who had done just that. It is an appalling use of public money, and Conservative Members should be ashamed of having done that.

Ian Blackford: My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech, but it is even worse than he has outlined. We know this spending took place—it was admitted in court by an official from the Cabinet Office—yet last week in this House the Government sought to continue to deny that it happened, and we have not had one word of contrition or an acceptance that this happened; now is the opportunity for the Government to do so.

Stephen Flynn: My right hon. Friend makes an important point, because there have been opportunities, not just last week but throughout our debate today, for Conservative Members to stand up and clarify exactly why it happened, but they have failed to do so. It is incumbent upon the Minister to do so when she follows me in this debate.
But if the Conservatives are unwilling to do that, they should be willing to do one other thing: finally agree that a public inquiry must take place. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) says that it is. When is it happening? Is it happening now? It should happen now. Some Conservative Members  argue that it is not happening now because we are still in the middle of the pandemic, but one of them said today that the emergency is over. So if not now, then when? The hon. Member for Macclesfield is wearing his mask; in two weeks, he will not have to. We will be told that the pandemic is almost over at that point. Yet the Government will not start a public inquiry because they are afraid of accountability, transparency and the consequences for them in the polls.
Ultimately, the people are watching—in particular, the people of Scotland. We will be at a crossroads once again in the not-too-distant future in relation to the constitutional settlement on these islands. The people of Scotland will have the opportunity to decide their future once again. Is this incompetent, sleazy and corrupt Government the limit of their ambitions? Absolutely not, and when they have the opportunity to decide, they will choose to take a different path. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) shakes his head. If he is not in agreement, he can get his Prime Minister to go to the polls any day, any time, and the people of Scotland will show him an alternative way.
It is not just about the cronyism; it is also about the handling of the pandemic. I have been appalled by some of the remarks from Government Members in relation to the situation in Scotland at the moment. We even had a Member at the back blaming it on Scotland fans going to the football. Of course, the only people who were not allowed to travel in the UK were football fans. I find the remarks that we have heard appalling.

James Cartlidge: rose—

Stephen Flynn: The hon. Member had the opportunity to say what he said earlier, and he can reflect upon it. The truth of the matter is that the situation in Scotland is as it is because Government Members let the Johnson variant in. They brought the delta variant to our shores. They could have closed the door, and they chose not to.

James Cartlidge: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me, as you did my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), how I correct the record? I did not at all blame Scottish fans. I said that personally I was happy for them to travel and to celebrate. The point I made, sir, was that SNP Members were saying that it was our fault that Scotland now has the highest rate of covid in Europe, but had they wanted to do something they could have stopped fans travelling.

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for the Chair, and I hope that this device will not be abused.

Stephen Flynn: The record is clear, and the hon. Member should reflect on his remarks. When the Scottish people look at it in totality—the cronyism, the corruption, the mishandling of the pandemic, and the bringing of the Johnson variant to our shores—they will say that they have had enough. The people of Scotland will vote for independence.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate and I associate myself with the remarks and the tributes that have been paid to all those who have lost their lives, and the  incredible work that so many have done to help in the pandemic. I was particularly moved by the story of the twin brother of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford). My twin brother started the pandemic as cabin crew for Virgin Atlantic, and in fact still works for it, but he volunteered at the Nightingale Hospital London and then retrained as a phlebotomist to help with the blood plasma work and antibody work for the NHS. I am incredibly proud of him, of all my constituents and of everyone across the country who has done such an amazing job in the pandemic.
At the heart of all the speeches have been core questions of those in public life—that we should take responsibility, fulfil our duty and act in the public interest. This debate is the latest in a long line of debates and urgent questions on this topic. The Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), set out yet again the facts and figures, but I remind the House that we are talking about goods and services that included 32 billion items of personal protective equipment and 15,000 ventilators with enormous numbers of component parts. It was a massive and highly complex procurement at a time when the rest of the world was doing the same. Against that backdrop, less than 1% of that PPE was not fit for purpose. I pay tribute to all those who made that happen.
We were focused on getting the right spec in the right volumes to the right people in the right timeframe. We followed up thousands of offers of help and the same processes were applied to all expressions of interest. Although SNP Members have collective amnesia, they were on the daily calls and fully know the nature of the hotlines that we set up. All this information is in the public domain and subject to scrutiny. Procurement rules were not suspended. The efforts made and the motivation behind them were recognised by many public bodies that hold us to account. They were recognised by the National Audit Office in its November report and even in the judgment in respect of Public First. Are there lessons that could be learned? Yes. Could we have been better prepared? Yes. Were we late with our paperwork? Yes—but as a procurement officer at the Cabinet Office said, “I’d rather be late with my paperwork than a nurse go without PPE.”
We have been subject to an enormous amount of scrutiny: two PACAC reports; 15 Public Accounts Committee reports; one Treasury report; one report from the independent auditor; three Boardman reports; one review from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; one review from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; one review from the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards; two reports from the Information Commissioner’s Office; and one joint inquiry from the Health and Social Care Committee and the Science and Technology Committee. All those, as well as the inquiry that the Prime Minister has announced. We are also accountable before the law; it is ironic that I cannot talk about many of the contracts people would be interested in because they are subject to legal proceedings.
I always take pleasure in taking part in SNP debates; I have done a few and am beginning to notice a pattern. I have been called here previously to defend the UK’s position on jobs, while the SNP has dismissed the  545,000 Scottish jobs that are reliant on Scotland’s being part of the UK; I have been called here to discuss the importance of hypothetical EU funding mechanisms, while the SNP dismisses the very real United Kingdom dividend to the taxpayers of Scotland of £2,000 per person; and in another debate the SNP sought to be the champions of democracy while they ignored the result of two referendums. Although it might be a surprise to some that, in a week when we have had more revelations about the Scottish Government’s own lack of financial propriety and literacy, the SNP has called a debate on such schemes, it is not a surprise to me: I think it shows admirable consistency, as well as a complete lack of self-awareness with a large helping of assumed piety.
In addition to the many things we have done in government to improve transparency and procurement, let me tell the SNP and the House what we have not done. We did not hire to run our testing service, at the cost of £10 million, a firm that promptly furloughed its staff; the SNP did. We did not ignore firms that offered PPE to NHS Scotland; the SNP did. We did not provide guarantees to a company to the tune of £5 million per job to be secured—yes, £5 million per job—and then fail to secure those jobs; the SNP did. We did not secure loans without due diligence; the SNP did. Our National Audit Office did not say that we had no framework for working with private companies and, indeed, needed urgently to establish one; Audit Scotland did say that of the Scottish Government. We are not having to face replacing lost public funds from capital budgets—money earmarked to build schools and hospitals; the SNP is.
We did not ignore recommendations made by our auditing body, unlike the SNP, which has been criticised for ignoring Audit Scotland’s reports for the past three years; and we did not ignore inward investors who wanted to put their own money into Scotland and instead give preference to another firm that could do so only with public funds, as the media report this week.
If SNP Members want to start to gain some credibility on these matters, I suggest two things. First, they should implement the recommendations of their own scrutiny bodies and place information on deals, guarantees and dealings with private companies—including in respect of the Gupta Family Group—in the public domain.
Secondly, I want SNP Members to think about the context in which we are having this debate. This week, we learned that Scotland contains six of the 10 places with the highest infection rates in Europe. On average, Scotland’s schoolchildren have missed 119 days of schooling in this pandemic, and those from deprived backgrounds even more so. A massive 216,000 operations have not taken place in NHS Scotland. We have a huge catch-up job to do, and we must ensure that we can keep a vaccine programme on track.
We all face these issues and challenges, and we will meet them better if we meet them together. For our part, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will continue to engage with Scottish colleagues. Our four-nation NHS will continue to work together, as will our chief medical officers. My fellow Ministers and I—all comprehensive school educated, by the way—will come to this House to be held to account, and we will continue to reject the distracting, delusional and divisive debate from the SNP. We will do the responsible thing. We know our duty to the Scottish people, and we will always be guided by what is in their interest. I hope that, one day, the SNP will do the same.

Nigel Evans: Please observe covid regulations when voting.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 365.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

EU Settlement Scheme

Nigel Evans: We are now seamlessly moving on to the next debate, the second Opposition day motion on the EU settlement scheme. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of Wendy Chamberlain. I call Stuart C. McDonald to move the motion.

Stuart McDonald: I beg to move,
That this House regrets the end of Freedom of Movement following the UK’s exit from the European Union; notes the enormous contribution EU nationals make to the UK economy and society, including in response to the ongoing covid-19 pandemic; regrets that the Government did not grant automatic right to remain to EU nationals despite assurances made during the EU referendum campaign; welcomes the fact there have been over six million successful applications to the EU Settlement Scheme; but further notes with concern that inevitably, many thousands of EU nationals have not applied; regrets that provision in relation to late applications will not prevent injustices and the loss of rights of many thousands of EU citizens; calls on the Government to recognise that the ongoing health emergency has also impacted on outreach work and the ability of EU nationals to apply, and to respond to this either by automatically granting Settled Status or by scrapping or extending the 30 June deadline; and further calls on the Government to introduce physical proof of Settled and Pre-Settled Status and to work with the Scottish Government on agreeing a transfer of immigration powers to allow the Scottish Government to create a Scottish visa or Scottish migration system.
I am grateful for opportunity to introduce this debate on the EU settlement scheme and I am very grateful to hon. Members across the House for taking part, especially as some minds may be starting to drift towards Euros of a different sort just a few miles away in north-west London.
The starting point, and I hope a matter of unanimity across the House, is what our motion says in relation to the enormous contribution that our EU nationals have made to every part of the UK: to our economy, our public services and culturally. I hope we also all agree that we want these EU citizens to stay. That is why we selected this topic for debate: to allow us to press the Government on whether their settlement scheme really reflects those goals as well as it could, and what we feel are the obstacles making it harder for some to stay than it should be. It gives us the opportunity to ask what happens now that the EU settlement scheme deadline has passed and what can be done to protect those who, as things stand, have lost their rights.
In a moment, I will get into the nuts and bolts of the rather messy situation we find ourselves in, but it is important to start by making clear what happened last week and why. Last Thursday morning, at the stroke of midnight, thanks to policy choices made by successive Conservative Governments, tens and almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people to all intents and purposes lost their rights to live, work, study and enjoy family life here in this country. It does not matter how long they have been here or whether they really have any home elsewhere, the clock struck midnight and these people became subject to the full force of the hostile environment. The first question for the Minister is whether he will tell the House what estimate the Home Office has made of the number of those who have failed  to apply prior to the deadline. If we are to have a proper discussion about the scheme, surely that is the least of the information the Government must provide?

Edward Leigh: The difficulty for the SNP in this sort of debate is that while they are quite right to talk about some teething problems relating to our leaving the EU, will those problems not be compounded a thousand times more if the United Kingdom was broken up? For centuries Scots have settled here. Would it not be absurd if, Scotland having left the United Kingdom and joined the EU, Scots had to apply for settled status here or we had to apply for settled status in Scotland? What is the answer?

Stuart McDonald: The answer, quite simply, is that there is a country that the right hon. Gentleman may be aware of called Ireland, which is part of the common travel area and enjoys full blown free movement of people from the rest of the EU. There is absolutely no question of people having to apply for visas to get across borders and so on. It is perfectly possible and there would be absolutely no need for any such thing.

Edward Leigh: I thought the hon. Gentleman would make that answer. That settlement was made in 1921. The difficulty for the SNP is that it would have to reapply as a new state to join the EU. It is very unlikely that the EU would bend all its rules, as happened in 1921 in Ireland, so it would be in grave difficulty. I am afraid the SNP has to answer that point. If breaking up the EU is so bad, breaking up the UK is even more difficult.

Stuart McDonald: I am not going to go down the rabbit hole the right hon. Gentleman is trying to take me down. All the indications we have had from people involved in the European Union and from other member states is that they would be perfectly happy to welcome an independent Scotland into the EU and I very much look forward to the day that that happens, but I want to get back to the subject of this debate, which is the status of EU citizens who are here today.

Steve Double: I know the SNP wants to present this image of a hostile environment and how the settled status scheme is not working. However, the experience of actual people is completely the opposite. Only this morning I had an email from a constituent who missed the deadline for a technical reason, and my office helped get her application in. This morning she received an email from the Home Office confirming that all her rights are protected while her application is processed. The scheme is working well, and the picture the hon. Gentleman paints just is not true.

Stuart McDonald: I will come back to that, and I acknowledge there has been significant success with more than 6 million people applying for the scheme, but yesterday I met the3million which, of all organisations, is the one that knows exactly what is happening on the ground and its implications. I will come to all sorts of problems that still exist in the scheme, and the whole purpose of this debate is to try to iron out those problems and to see what we can do to fix them.
The point I was making is that tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people are in a pretty difficult situation because of the fundamental design of this system. Whether it is tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, it is an extraordinary, painful and awful moment.
On Thursday morning, in contrast to the hon. Gentleman, I received my first email on this subject from somebody who applied late: “My mother is quite distressed, as she needed to apply for settled status by 30 June but did not think it applied to her, maybe in denial. She needed someone to help fill out the online forms and upload the documents. The OTP”—one-time PIN—“code did not arrive on her very old phone and, as well as tech issues, she has recently applied to renew her Italian passport. My dad thinks her Italian ID card will be sufficient. I just cannot believe that someone who has been here for 50 years and is married to a UK citizen has to go through this process. Also she is very worried that her cancer drug will be withdrawn.”
I am hopeful that the situation will be resolved, in exactly the way the hon. Gentleman was able to resolve it for his constituent, but what cannot be undone is the stress, anxiety and hurt that this whole process is causing people. That is just one of hundreds of such cases that we can all expect to see in the weeks, months and even years ahead. The vast majority of people will find it appalling, because it is unnecessary.

Chris Stephens: An Italian constituent has written to me and is very concerned about the lack of physical evidence, which they think will be problematic for future mortgage applications, banking, work and the rest of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to look at this and make sure that people have physical evidence of their settled status?

Stuart McDonald: That is a good point, and it is not something I will speak too much about today, although I have spoken about it previously. I know other hon. Members will make that case, and they have my full support.
The scheme did not need to operate like this. There were different options available to the Government that would have prevented this disastrous cliff edge, or at least alleviated its worst impacts, and for which hon. Members on both sides of the House have advocated. My party passionately supported continued free movement. Alternatively, along with many Members on both sides of the House, we advocated a declaratory system in which an Act of Parliament would simply have declared that EU citizens resident at the required date retained the same rights as before, which would have provided far greater security and peace of mind. That, of course, is essentially what was promised during the EU referendum.
The now Prime Minister, Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster all signed a pledge:
“There will be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK. These EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and will be treated no less favourably than they are at present.”
Tell that to my constituent and the many others currently without their rights. That promise was simply reneged upon, despite its three authors occupying all the roles in  Government required to deliver it. One of them should be at the Dispatch Box to explain exactly why the promise was not kept.

Craig Williams: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on his point about causing stress to constituents across the United Kingdom, which he made rather than welcoming the 6 million people who have applied and the 5 million who have settled status, which is the proportionate response? Will he inform my constituents and his that they are very likely to get settled status, rather than scaremongering as he currently is?

Stuart McDonald: I am absolutely not scaremongering. I spoke for about two hours yesterday to the3million, which I have repeatedly asked the Minister to meet, and I do not think he has yet. The organisation receives reports from EU nationals across the country who are encountering difficulties, some of which I will set out. I have already welcomed the fact that more than 6 million people have applied, and I will say a little more about that in a moment. I am not scaremongering; I am passing on what EU nationals are telling the3million and me.
On the other hand, the Government are saying that we should shout about and celebrate the success of the EU settlement scheme. As I have said, I praise the civil servants who have worked hard to ensure that more than 6 million applications have been processed and granted. The reason why tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people have fallen through the gap is not down to the civil servants, albeit that there have inevitably been rough edges and problems because of the fundamental flaws in the decisions made by the Home Secretary and her predecessors. In essence, they opened a horrible big trapdoor and they now want us to thank them for the fact that only tens or hundreds of thousands of people have fallen through it—potentially into the hostile environment.

Alex Sobel: I am particularly concerned about the status of children, many of whom have grown up in the UK: their status is unclear and it is even unclear whether they are British citizens. There is also a big loophole when it comes to pregnant EU citizens who have applied to the scheme. The status of their yet-to-be-born children is really unclear. The situation is full of loopholes and flaws.

Stuart McDonald: Lots of questions and loopholes have been identified. The fact that the Home Office had to issue hundreds of pages of guidance, even in the two or three weeks prior to the end of the transition period, shows that the issue has been difficult for it to address.
I come to what this debate should be about, which is looking forward to what can be done. We absolutely maintain that even now a declaratory scheme would be far preferable—people would still apply to the settlement scheme to prove their status, but at the very least the huge uncertainty would be removed and security would be delivered for them. Short of that, surely to goodness the transition period should be extended. There are a million reasons why that would be sensible—not least covid. Outreach work has been curtailed and embassies and scanning centres have been closed. People are not ready.
It is important to remember that this is not just a question of EU nationals being ready, but of employers, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, Department for Work and Pensions staff, landlords, local authority staff and bank staff having to be ready and NHS staff having to understand. As I said, the Home Office itself was still pumping out hundreds of pages of guidance in June and making tweaks to the system. I do not think the Home Office was ready for the end of the transition, and I do not think it can expect all those other organisations to be ready either. As I will mention, there is also an enormous backlog of cases.
Alternatively, the Government could at least remove the requirement for a reasonable excuse and keep the scheme open for the duration. It has to be open anyway, both for late applications and for people with pre-settled status who then go on to try to secure settled status. Why not simply allow people to come forward as it becomes necessary to secure their rights?
To be absolutely fair, the guidance on the reasonable excuse provision is reasonably generous, and more generous than it could have been, so I thank the Minister for that. But the very existence of that test plants huge seeds of doubt in people’s minds—if I have any doubt about whether my excuse will be accepted, am I putting myself at risk of enforcement action? I say that we should continue to encourage people to come forward, not discourage them.
That last proposal would be better than nothing, but it would not protect people from the impacts of the hostile environment in the meantime. That hostile environment is supposed to be undergoing an end-to-end review in the light of Wendy Williams’s Windrush report. The fact that the review has not yet been completed should be another ground for extending the grace period. More fundamentally, the hostile environment should be entirely suspended until the review takes place and its findings are implemented. All these are real, sensible, constructive options, open to the Government, that would ease the pain of the process. I hope the Government listen.
I turn now to a tiny number of examples of how difficult, technical and confusing the process has become. I am highlighting what groups such as the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the3million are telling me. I do that to press the Minister for a response and to underline the case that there has at least to be an extension to the transition period.
First, I turn to the question of those who applied before the deadline but are still waiting for a decision. How on earth is it that, as I understand it, the backlog has risen to 570,000 cases? Back in October 2019, the resolution centre was able to conclude just over 400,000 cases, but in each of the three months up to the deadline, as I understand it, fewer than half that number were concluded each month, despite additional staff having been drawn in from the Post Office and elsewhere. Is that backlog not enough in itself to justify an extension?
Can the Minister tell us how many applications received in June were dealt with in the five-day target? According to EU settlement scheme statistics, applications from children comprise 15% of the total, with decisions on 25% of applications still pending; they also comprise around a quarter of applications pending for over three months. Why is that?
In theory, the full rights of people with outstanding in-time applications are protected while they wait—and that, of course, is welcome. But what is the reality on the ground? Already, all sorts of reports are coming in to representative groups about employers and landlords—and also the Home Office’s own Border Force staff—getting the checks wrong. That does not surprise me, because the situation is messy.
Some people with outstanding in-time applications will provide their prospective employer or landlord with a certificate of application to show that they have made the application. Some will provide a physical certificate, printed off, that leads to the employer contacting the employer checking service or the landlord checking with the landlord checking service. Others still will not have a certificate of approval but just an acknowledgement email; that, too, should lead to the checking service being consulted.
But in the last few days, the Home Office has started sending digital certificates of application to avoid the need for anyone to use the checking services, which can take a couple of days. The applicant will provide a code to the prospective employer or landlord, and when that is input into the system it should confirm that an application is outstanding. I hope hon. Members followed that, because all of us in this House are employers, but given that the guidance was issued only a couple of weeks before the deadline, I suspect that there are huge swathes of employers and landlords out there who do not have the first clue what somebody means when they approach them for a new tenancy or a new job and say, “Here’s my digital code. This should tell you that I have an application outstanding.”

Thomas Tugendhat: I am absolutely delighted to hear this speech, because the hon. Gentleman is explaining the complexities of leaving a Union that we were part of for about 40 years, yet somehow he seems to assume that leaving this Union is really hard but that leaving one that includes the military, finance, pensions, homes and everything else is going to be incredibly easy. I am not quite sure whether he will explain that disconnect.

Stuart McDonald: The point, as I have said, is that the Government could have made this process a hell of a lot easier. Government decisions have made this difficult, not anything else.
We know from research that discrimination is widespread when private actors have to undertake even basic checks, such as passport and visa checks, and it is blindingly obvious that the half a million people who are in the queue are going to face discrimination on stilts if they have to explain these processes. Other than telling employers and landlords to follow guidance, what more is being done to clamp down on and prevent this discrimination? What monitoring, even, is being done?
In theory, public bodies should find this easier, yet we hear of cases of universities not being prepared to confirm that students are eligible for home fee status, or the Student Loans Company not confirming eligibility for student finance until their status is decided. Just an hour ago, I learned of a universal credit case being turned down because, even though the national insurance  number and date of birth all matched up, the Department for Work and Pensions could not verify the digital share code. What is the Home Office doing to identify and accelerate these cases to ensure that no one is denied the educational opportunities that they are entitled to? How will people be compensated when they have been wrongly refused entry to the UK, work or housing, or been charged for NHS treatment or incorrectly denied home fees or student finance because of a failure to apply the law correctly?
Another huge problem is that use of the checking service provides a landlord or employer with only a six-month guarantee of protection from prosecution, but why would an employer or landlord take on someone when they can have a guarantee of only six months’ rent or six months’ work? That is why it was wrong to end the transition while over 500,000 people were in this perilous position. A freedom of information request in May showed that 100,000 people had been waiting for over three months for a decision. That is a hell of a long time to be in this semi-legal limbo.
Finally on this particular topic, I understand that there are also significant numbers of cases where people have completed parts of the application process online but not the whole process—for example, even just the final “submit” stage. Is the Home Office taking steps to identify and reach out to those people as well?
Turning to people who apply late, or have applied late and are waiting for a decision, it is welcome that they can continue to access healthcare and that, if I understand it correctly, they can continue to exercise rights that they are currently exercising, such as keeping an existing job or social security benefit if they apply with 28 days’ notice. However, the huge gap here is that there is no right to take on a new job or new accommodation in England, or to claim a new social security benefit or use other services, so an important first question is why the Home Office thinks this is consistent with the withdrawal agreement, which states that pending a decision on any application, all rights will be deemed to apply to the applicant.
It is easy for the Government to say, “Well the process is quick and therefore these issues should not be widespread. Get the application in and then get on with your job hunt or social security application”, but, in practice, it is not that simple. We know that over 100,000 people had been waiting for more than three months in May, and remember, too, that, as we know from Windrush, it is precisely when people are making new job applications or applying for social security or a tenancy that they suddenly realise that they have not applied and should have done. Waiting for three months at these moments of crisis could destroy lives, with employment, accommodation and financial support all missed out on.
The Home Office has mentioned a process for accelerating certain cases, which is welcome, but how does that work? How can we ask on behalf of our constituents that their case is accelerated for these very good reasons? What will the criteria be for accelerating cases, what will the timescales be, and what does that mean for other cases and how long they will take?
Finally, on late applications, I previously asked the Minister what would happen if someone incurred health charges because they had failed to apply for the settlement scheme, but, having realised their error, they then went on to apply late and successfully showed that they had a  reasonable excuse. If I recall correctly, the Minister suggested at the Home Affairs Committee that it would be ridiculous to then insist on those charges being paid. After all, they had had a reasonable excuse for a late application, but, as I understand it—I would love to be corrected—that is exactly what will now happen in England. How can that be justified? Why is it that someone who is considered to have reasonable grounds to apply late can still be held liable for healthcare charges incurred before submission of their justifiably late application? It seems an incredibly strange situation.
What about those who have not applied at all? I want everyone to apply, though late—I am sure we all do—so what is the Government’s strategy here? Is there not a danger that the reasonable excuse test is going to put people off, especially if, as suggested in the guidance, it has to be more strictly interpreted the more time goes on? Why is that advice there? Those who encounter border enforcement, whether the Home Office version or delegated private actors such as employers, are going to have 28 days’ notice to apply, but what has been done to make sure that some of the people most likely to have missed a deadline—vulnerable and marginalised groups, and maybe those with health issues or with poor English—understand what that notice means and what exactly is required of them? For example, is it going be available in different languages, will they be signposted for advice and what happens if that 28-day deadline is missed?
It is much more likely that people who have not applied will become aware of the problem only through an encounter not with Border Force, but with an employer, the DWP, a landlord or somebody else, so what work has been done to ensure that, rather than just saying no, they signpost and, in the case of Government Departments, assist them in ensuring that an application can be submitted. The Government are committed to funding grant-funded organisations supporting EU citizens with late applications until September. Why is it only to September? Can we have funding for beyond that as well?
Finally, I turn to the issue for those who actually get settled or pre-settled status. Even if somebody is successful, that is not the end of their problems, and others, as I have said, will speak about the lack of a physical proof of status. There are more than 2 million people with pre-settled status, and many of them will struggle to prove the five-year residence required for settled status. What support will be available to help them with equally vital applications, and what happens to those who fail to apply at the time when their pre-settled status expires?
The settlement scheme may have been designed to be straightforward, but its interplay with our complicated immigration system means that it just cannot be. I struggle to follow its implications, and I suspect many hon. Members will have struggled to follow them as well, yet guidance for employers and landlords was issued just a couple of weeks back. This has, I am afraid, at the end of the day, ended up being a rush job. Even if all our other ideas are rejected, at the very least we need a longer transition period, and for the umpteenth time, I do ask that the Minister meets the3million campaign group.
In closing, during the referendum the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster also promised that, after Brexit, Scotland would have immigration powers. That seems to have gone the same way as his promise to EU  nationals. We have debated the devolution of immigration or at least some immigration powers before, and it is on these occasions that the normally very measured Minister tends to start engaging in tub-thumping rhetoric rather than the arguments in the discussion. I am not going to repeat all those arguments today, but report after report from the Scottish Government, academics, thinktanks and immigration lawyers offer myriad reasons why this should be done, and templates for how this could be done.

Jonathan Edwards: I have been lobbied quite strongly by businesses in my constituency, where there is a big shortage of HGV drivers, for instance. Analysis indicates that there are up to 76,000 vacancies in the sector, which hits logistics and construction. Would not one reform that would help with the economic problems we face in Wales and Scotland be for the British Government to allow the Welsh and Scottish Governments to put sectors of the economy where there are skills shortages on the shortage occupations list?

Stuart McDonald: I think the hon. Gentleman makes an absolutely fair point, but as I say, there are many different ways we could do this, and all I ask is that people engage with these ideas, rather than just dismiss them out of hand. At the very least, the Government should think again about the remote areas pilot scheme recommended by the Migration Advisory Committee, which the Government just promptly ditched without any sort of explanation at all, otherwise it will be clear that there is no prospect of Scotland having any real influence over these vital powers while it is part of the UK.
In the meantime, I believe we all want to protect EU citizens. We have offered our proposals. We believe that the status quo is fraught with a million problems. There needs to be action and significant changes if protection of EU citizens is to be a reality.

Nigel Evans: While there will not be a time limit to begin with, that is clearly open to review if people go wildly over five or six minutes in their contributions, depending on how long we take on the opening speeches.

Kevin Foster: As the first Home Office Minister to come to the Dispatch Box since this afternoon’s news, I would like to pay tribute to my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), and say that we will miss him as a Minister in the Home Office. We obviously still look forward to continuing to work with him as a Member of this House, and wish him the very best for the future.
I am very grateful to the SNP for the opportunity to use the time allocated for today’s debate to highlight the great success of the EU settlement scheme, our approach to late applications, and how welcome it is that so many of our friends and neighbours who arrived during the time of free movement want to make our United Kingdom their home on a permanent basis. I appreciate the generally constructive tone of my debates with the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch  East (Stuart C. McDonald): even though we disagree on some fundamental points, he has given some very constructive input, both during his time as my direct shadow and now in his slightly different role as the SNP’s lead spokesperson on home affairs.
As this House is aware, the deadline for applying to the scheme for those resident in the UK by the end of the transition period was last Wednesday, 30 June. As of that date, in excess of 6 million applications have been received by the scheme. More than 5.4 million of those have already concluded and more than 5.1 million grants of status have been issued, with literally thousands being decided every day.

Thomas Tugendhat: I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend making these statements. Is he aware that if he had applied for settled status in France, he would probably be queuing up even now, and that if he had done the same in Belgium, he would even now be waiting for documents to be approved? The Home Office has secured a remarkable achievement: even when we were members of the European Union, the paperwork needed to be legally resident in France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, and in many other countries around the EU was significantly more complicated than the procedure that my hon. Friend has set up.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments: obviously, he has a unique perspective on these issues, given his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is always worth reflecting that on the day the French system opened for applications for UK nationals living in France, the EUSS had already received over 4 million applications. That just shows the scale of the scheme, and most people had the ability to apply from home, using an app on their smartphone to verify their identity in conjunction with their national passport. We are very pleased, and we hope that others will learn lessons from our success at getting so many applications in and so many settled and concluded already when it comes to how they approach the position of UK citizens living in their own nations.
To be clear, any application posted on 30 June is also considered to be in time. In recognition of the time it can take for post from all parts of our Union, especially the highlands and islands, to be delivered, we will assume any application received in the post until midnight tonight was posted in time. This is to ensure there is no prospect of an in-time application being ruled out purely on the basis of when it was delivered to the Home Office. Overall, these numbers are significant just in themselves: despite all the warnings about our potential willingness and ability to deliver, literally millions of EU citizens in the UK and their family members now have their status protected and their rights secured under UK law.

Stuart McDonald: The first question I asked was how many applications the Home Office estimates have fallen through the net. Is it tens or hundreds of thousands? The Home Office must surely have an estimate.

Kevin Foster: Our determination has always been to get as many as possible to apply, first by the deadline and now that it has passed. I repeat the message I gave  at the end of last week: if people have not met the dead- line, do get in touch. We will look to help and to resolve the situation, rather than taking a particularly hard view on what constitutes a reasonable ground.
Of course, there was never a scheme to register as a European economic area national—we have never had the concept of identity cards in this country, certainly not since the end of world war two—and some who remain eligible to apply for the EUSS, such as joining family members, inherently live abroad even though they are eligible. We do believe that given the sheer scale of applications, the vast and overwhelming majority of those who live here in the UK have applied. However, it would be impossible to put a final figure on it, not least because of those abroad who could still apply; because of the issue, which I will come on to in a few minutes, of children who are yet to be born who may also be able to get status; and also because some of those people are non-EEA nationals. Some people think that eligibility for the EUSS equates to the EU population here in the UK, but it does not. There are many non-EEA nationals, as the hon. Member will know, who qualified for status under the EUSS, through routes such as the Surinder Singh rights that existed under free movement.
A comment that I have been keen to make quite regularly is that the EUSS is the lesson learned from the Windrush era. What happened to members of the Windrush generation was an outrage, and we must apply every lesson that we have learned from the scandal to ensure that our immigration system functions fairly and effectively, and the EU settlement scheme is no exception. It provides clear status and secure evidence of that status, which people will need for years to come, and they can be confident that their rights will be protected under it. By contrast, a declaratory system with status granted automatically but, crucially, with no individual evidence of that would risk repeating the difficulties faced by the Windrush generation, and that is not something that we can allow to happen again.

Stuart McDonald: The Minister knows full well that that is not what we are advocating. We are advocating a declaratory system with a system that provides proof, which would be the settlement scheme. The only difference is that we have the settlement scheme, but we also have the automaticity in law, which provides so much reassurance. It takes away so much of the stress and anxiety that this is causing to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of EU nationals.

Kevin Foster: This is where we disagree. It will not give EU nationals great comfort if, in years to come, there is a status that they will have to try to prove backwards, having realised that there was something that they should have applied for. We believe that the approach of having a clear deadline, but with reasonable grounds for late applications, gives that certainty of when they need to make an application, and an ability to ensure that those who are not entitled to the benefits of EUSS—those who did not move here before 31 December 2020—are not able to take advantage of these generous provisions. The figures are a testament not only to the work that has gone into this scheme, which ensured that it was simple to use, but to the efforts of more than 1,500 dedicated staff working on the EUSS, and I was pleased to hear the comments of the hon. Member about them.
Let me turn now to the issue of the work in progress. As of 30 June, there were around 570,000 pending applications, which were classed as “in time”. As we have made clear, a person’s existing rights continue to be protected in law pending the outcome of an application made by 30 June. This is achieved by the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. It is not just a guarantee from me here at the Dispatch Box, but is written into law. In the meantime, they will be able to rely on their certificate of application, which they can use if they need to prove their immigration status for any reason, such as taking up a new job or renting a new property in England. We have also published updated guidance for employers and landlords that makes that clear.

Stuart McDonald: This is a fundamental point. The legal guarantees are absolutely very welcome, but, given that the guidance was published only a couple of weeks before the deadline, realistically how many employers, landlords and even public servants does the Minister think are remotely aware of what they need to do to check somebody who presents them with a certificate of application and a bit of digital code? What are the Government doing to monitor that and to take action to make sure that there is greater awareness?

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Member for the overall tone of his question. First, we have made it very clear that landlords and employers do not need to make retrospective checks. We have been saying that for a long time. If they accepted a passport or an ID card from an EEA national for right to work or right to rent checks in England, they do not need, as of today, to start going back through the process to see who has EUSS status and who does not.
None the less, we have been looking at our systems and seeing how people use them. For example, the view and prove service allows users to view their immigration status online. These are not particularly new systems that we are bringing in. Between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the first quarter of 2021, the service had seen more than 3.9 million views by individuals and more than 330,000 views by organisations checking immigration status. We have also seen banks checking identities. It should not come as a huge surprise that, in the middle of the current situation, some people have found it quite helpful to be able to prove their status in a digital way online rather than presenting physical documents face to face. We will, of course, monitor this. We are certainly clear that there should not be discrimination on this ground. Many of those with status under the British National (Overseas) visa, which we created as a settlement route for those in Hong Kong, also rely on purely digital status. Again, we are keen to ensure that employers are well aware of what is there. We have published guidance that makes it clear what an employer should do if they discover that one of their staff does not have EU settled status—to be clear, the employer does not need to terminate the staff member’s employment immediately, but can give them 28 days and secure a statutory excuse in the way that has been set out—and what signposting can be done.
We have had quite a bit of conversation about applications that are outstanding. Given the millions of applications that had already been received a year ago, it is worth noting only about 6,000 have been left  outstanding for more than 12 months. More than 5,000 of them are being held at what we refer to as the suitability stage. In virtually all cases, it is because the applicant either has pending prosecutions, which means that a decision cannot be made until that criminal justice matter is resolved, or has been referred for consideration of deportation action in relation to criminal justice matters and criminal records.
When it comes to communicating, we have so far invested nearly £8 million in public communications about the EUSS to encourage EU citizens who are eligible for the scheme, and their family members, to apply. Our communications and engagement work will continue with a focus on groups who may not yet have applied, and on the marginalised. It is probably worth my saying from the Dispatch Box that we appreciate the support we have had from the devolved Administrations in that area, particularly the Scottish Government’s “Stay in Scotland” campaign, to reach out and communicate with people.
Plenty of support is still available for applicants who need it. Seventy-two organisations across the UK have been provided with up to £22 million in Home Office funding to help vulnerable people apply to the scheme. Eleven of those organisations are in Scotland, including Airdrie citizens advice bureau, Edinburgh CAB, Inverness, Badenoch and Strathspey CAB, Perth CAB, Community Renewal, Feniks, Fife Migrants Forum, Perth and Kinross Association of Voluntary Service, Positive Action in Housing, the International Organisation for Migration and the Simon Community. We very much appreciate their work.
Those 72 organisations have among them helped more than 310,000 vulnerable people to apply to the scheme. That includes victims of human trafficking or domestic abuse, those with severe mental health conditions, those without a permanent address and those who are elderly or isolated. As I have touched on, the organisations are funded up to 30 September, and we will review the demand over the summer to see what the position should be beyond 30 September. I note the comments of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about that.
The EU settlement resolution centre is open seven days a week to provide applicants with assistance over the telephone and by email, and the assisted digital service provides help over the phone with completing the online application process. We continue to support local authorities to ensure that all eligible looked-after children secure their status under the scheme, and we are providing practical help in several ways in addition to the extra funding that has been made available for this work following a new burdens assessment. I confirm to the House that as of 23 April, which was two months before the deadline, applications for the EUSS had been received for 2,440—estimated to be 67% —of the 3,660 looked-after children and care leavers that our survey identified as eligible for the scheme. We have since been working with local authorities on the remaining cases across our Union. For example, we have had confirmation that all looked-after children identified as eligible in Northern Ireland have had applications made for them well before the deadline. We have also made it clear that we will take a pragmatic and flexible approach to applications made after the 30 June deadline.

Stuart McDonald: All the work to encourage looked-after children to have applications made on their behalf is absolutely welcome, but an issue that I did not have time to touch on was that some of these kids might actually be entitled to register as British citizens. Can we make sure that people are not missing out on their entitlement to British citizenship and going for settled status instead?

Kevin Foster: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. To be clear, if someone is a British citizen and entitled to go through that process, they cannot be granted status under the EUSS. Certainly, we would look to work with local authorities to see whether the person was eligible to be a British citizen or to be granted EU settled status. That is not something that local authorities are unused to working with, because there may well be non-EEA nationals in a similar position, but the point is well made.
As was touched on during the hon. Gentleman’s speech, we have published quite extensive but non-exhaustive guidance on what may constitute reasonable grounds for making a late application. For example, someone who is under 18 or does not have mental capacity to apply themselves—in essence, someone who relies on someone else to apply for them—is an obvious example of where we will see a late application as inherently based on reasonable grounds. I would also emphasise that there is no specific time period for reasonable grounds or a deadline for them. As I have often said in this House, we would consider it reasonable grounds for a child who is aged five today to apply in 13 years’ time on reaching 18 if, when going for their first job, they realised that an application had not been made for them. Each case will be considered according to its particular circumstances, so that we arrive at the appropriate and proportionate outcome in each case.
As has been touched on, a process is also in place to prioritise late applications where the person may be at risk of destitution or where other compelling grounds exist. We are building on our work with local authorities, grant-funded organisations and others to identify and expedite such cases. Also, Members should be familiar with the process through which they bring cases to me that they believe should be expedited in the wider visa system, and we will also ensure that when Members of Parliament make representations, that will be done on a similar basis.

Stuart McDonald: I think we have come to the crux of the argument here, in that the guidance about late applications is pretty generous—it is much more generous than it could have been, and that is welcome—but if the Government will go that far, why not just remove the reasonable grounds from the application altogether? Who exactly do they want to be able to refuse on the ground of being unreasonably late? Why not just scrap that test altogether?

Kevin Foster: It is a part of the EUSS, and it would be odd if we said that we would accept unreasonable grounds. It would seem a bit weird to put that in the immigration status. As I have said, we did not want to take a tick-box approach. Neither did we want, for the sake of argument, to say that an application from someone who was aged 17 and 364 days was definitely late, and instantly to say no to someone who was 18. We have taken the view that such an approach would be proportionate.
Yes, the guidelines on reasonable grounds are generous, as is the approach we have taken to postal applications, in assuming that any that are received in the post up to today will be considered to be in time, rather than asking for posting certificates or looking at when the envelope was franked by the Post Office. We recognise that not every area or community has a postal collection beyond 9 am, and it would produce some quite harsh outcomes if we required people to take a selfie of themselves posting something at 5 o’clock in the evening.
Touching on the point around pregnancy, we have already changed nationality law to provide for a grant of British citizenship when a child is born to someone who subsequently secures settled status based on a late application. That is based on the notion that they had reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June deadline but met the requirements for status at that time and before their child’s birth here in the UK. This provision also applies to anyone whose child is born between 1 July and their in-time application being decided and resulting in a grant of settled status.
Our focus will remain on encouraging those eligible for the EU settlement scheme to apply for and obtain their status, and we will continue to look for reasons to grant people status rather than to refuse it. Those currently receiving benefits who have not yet applied will not see their payments stop immediately. The Home Office is working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to reach out to people who may be eligible to apply. It is important that anyone who has not applied to the scheme does so, to ensure that their payments do not stop, but we would reassure them that help in applying remains available, including through our grant funded network.
Finally, in this area, if somebody who may be eligible for the scheme but has not made an application is encountered by immigration enforcement, they will be given another opportunity to apply. They will be issued with a notice giving them a further period, generally 28 days, in which to apply, and the notice will signpost them to the port available to do so. These safeguards have been built in to protect those who have not yet applied but who may still be eligible, and we believe that it will mean that everybody will be able to get the status they deserve.
As always in a debate on my brief inspired by the SNP, we see its ultimate desire tucked away at the end of the motion. While a debate on the EUSS, and this time for Members to reflect on the millions of applications it has received and statuses granted, is very welcome, the final line of the motion points to the ultimate goal of those who sit on the separatist Benches: a border for people between England and Scotland.
We always see that presented as just a chance to give Scotland’s employers an opportunity to recruit at the minimum wage on a European or perhaps even global basis, rather than offering the rewarding packages that many of Scotland’s key workers deserve—or perhaps as a way to avoid dealing with the underlying issues that drive people to abandon the world-famous natural beauty of the Scottish highlands and islands to find opportunities for work elsewhere. It does not take much to work out that, as the furlough scheme winds down, many of our fellow neighbours may face the need to find new employment, hence the support packages that the UK  Government are putting in place to help those who may need to retrain. Should immigration policy really be the go-to option for roles where the work-based training requirements can be completed in a shorter time?
Similarly, it is a depressing vision for the future of Scotland—or some of its most beautiful parts—to suggest creating a system that makes the main attraction or selling point of a future Scotland not better prospects, higher skills and being at the cutting edge of scientific research, but the fact that it is a place where someone will need to spend a few years before qualifying for indefinite leave to remain, which will then allow them to move elsewhere.
As we know, for every problem, the SNP believes a border with England is the answer. Our approach is clear: to create a migration system that is not focused on the politics of division and separatism, or where someone’s passport is from, but judges people by their skills and what they have to offer, and has at its core a vision of a higher-wage, higher-skill, higher-prosperity Scotland, delivered by being part of our United Kingdom—a Union greater than the sum of its parts.
That means that our focus is to deliver an immigration system that works for Scotland’s workers, universities, businesses, events and future economic growth. It can never be a magic bullet for issues and problems that are the responsibility of Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Government, much as we wish it could be, but Scotland’s interests have been at the heart of each stage of recent changes.
Those changes include setting the general salary threshold for our key economic migration route within £20 of the Scottish median salary; harmonising the rules for settlement with the requirements for the skilled worker visa to encourage those who have come to work here to stay here for good; reform of the permit-free festival system to move towards a more proportionate approach; allowing short-term study via the visitor route; simplifying processes and expanding opportunity; changes to the student route in support of the ambitions of Scotland’s universities; removing the need to apply for ATAS—academic technology approval scheme—permission for our closest allies when studying relevant courses; broadening the skills threshold to reflect not just academically focused careers; allowing permitted paid engagement leave via entry through Ireland, removing the need for a Dublin band to fly via Paris to do a gig in Glasgow; and, over the coming year, introducing biometric reuse on more routes to reduce the need to travel to a service centre when applying for further leave to remain.
All those things have been driven by direct engagement with Scotland and its businesses, universities and community groups. While the SNP attacks the points-based system, it is worth noting that its own plans for separation back in 2014 included such a system—one it presumably would have enforced, despite its regular comments about such things.
The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union in June 2016. We opened the EU settlement scheme in March 2019, on a basis rightly much more generous than the withdrawal agreement requires, to ensure that resident EU citizens—our friends and neighbours—were able to secure their rights under UK law. Our message to EU citizens in the UK, and something that I think none of us would disagree on, is that we want them to stay. The fact that so many of  those eligible for the EU settlement scheme have chosen to apply and secure their rights is something to be proud of and something that will support our nation and our Union for years to come.

Ian Murray: May I start by echoing the words of the Minister about his colleague the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire)? We wish him well and hope he has a speedy recovery back to his position in the Home Office. I also thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for the way in which he presented the case for the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be amazed, as I am, that for the first time since the election in 2019, the SNP are holding an Opposition day debate that is not about independence. When I heard that would be the case, I thought, “Great—we’re going to have a big debate on covid recovery in Scotland,” but that did not come forward either. I wonder why, given the events of the last week. The SNP has, however, still managed to make the debate about a border of some kind, so there is more to do yet; but maybe next time we have one it will have nothing to do with the constitution. This is nevertheless an incredibly important topic and I am delighted to be able to speak on behalf of the official Opposition.
May I first pay tribute to all the organisations who have been assisting in providing information to EU nationals on the settlement scheme, including the3million —mentioned by the Member who moved the motion, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East—and the Citizens’ Rights Project, which has helped so many of my constituents in Edinburgh? It is important to say at the outset that we should not conduct this debate on the narrative set by the Government’s hostile environment on immigration; that would be the wrong context for it, but it is worth putting in context why EU nationals are so anxious about this entire process.
We should be conducting these debates from the foundation that EU immigration has been good for this country and that the contribution that EU nationals make will continue to be of benefit to this country irrespective of their position with regard to Brexit. We do not have to look too far to see that. For example, just last week alone in the sporting world we have seen the incredible talents of Emma Raducanu, the new 18-year-old star of British tennis who reached the last 16 at Wimbledon. Born to a Romanian father and a Chinese mother, she was raised in the United Kingdom and has left every one of us in awe at her sporting talent, success and potential. Likewise, all the home nations football teams have been built with the benefits of immigration. An interesting graphic was circulated on social media by the Migration Museum, which showed that eight of the starting 11 in the England team that defeated Germany last week were the children or grandchildren of immigrants to this country; it was a very powerful graphic indeed.
Of course, tonight we will hear thousands of England fans singing “football’s coming home”—I would argue that the home of football is in Scotland, but nevertheless they will be singing that—but what is the definition of “home” for the Government? EU nationals, many of whom have been here for the majority of their lives, see Britain as their home, but the EU settlement scheme has made them feel, in their words, “unwelcome” and  “unappreciated”. This is their home, and we cannot emphasise enough that they are welcome. [Interruption.] I hear some chuntering from the Conservative Benches, but those are their words—EU nationals have told us that they feel unwelcome and unappreciated.

Steve Double: Will the hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that, while I take it that a few may feel that, the vast majority of EU citizens—certainly those I have spoken to in my constituency—actually feel at home and feel that the EU settled status scheme has made it incredibly easy and simple for them to gain their status? They love this country and I am glad that we have made it easy for them to stay.

Ian Murray: I do not think it is in doubt at all that EU nationals love this country, or they would not choose to be here and contribute to being here. This debate is about making sure that the EU settlement scheme can work for everyone and that the deadline that has just passed does not leave anybody, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, in limbo legally or otherwise, and the point of holding debates in this House is to iron out some of those problems.
I was not just talking about sports stars, of course. It is a simple, inescapable fact that our society and our precious national health service could not function, and certainly would not have functioned when we needed it most over the past 18 months, without the hard work of the people who have migrated to this country. They make Britain great, and we will never apologise for standing up for the rights of those who choose to call this country their home.
The immigration system that this Government have created over the past 11 years is broken, and surely the Minister could see, when he reeled off the list of things that the Home Office has been doing with regard to immigration, that the fact that the SNP has tabled a motion to devolve immigration and create that border is the result of some of the things that the Home Office has done over the past 11 years. The Government should reflect on some of those problems and try to resolve them. Demonising people who have contributed, or want to contribute, so much to our country has provided a level of distrust in the system that has meant that EU nationals feel uncertain about their future.
It is also very counterproductive, as we have already seen in the impact of the Government’s immigration policies, especially in key sectors at the forefront of the fight against coronavirus. There are workforce shortages now in our public services, particularly in the NHS and social care. Construction companies say that projects will have to be delayed due to lack of EU workers. Traditional industries in agriculture and food are struggling for the numbers that they require to function as  normal. Hospitality businesses are struggling to find enough staff; even the famous Tim Martin, founder of JD Wetherspoon, broke the irony meter last week when he called on the Government to introduce a new EU migrant visa for the hospitality sector.
And, of course, migration works both ways, with more than 1 million UK citizens choosing to make another European country their home. We cannot speak for other Governments in EU countries, of course, but  I know that in France the Government have extended the deadline for UK citizens to register until September, to ensure that they catch everyone who wishes to stay in France post Brexit. The Home Office has failed to do that despite repeated calls for it. Last week, in the days leading up to the settlement scheme deadline, I raised that very issue with the EU deputy ambassador to the UK, who told me of the extreme lengths to which EU countries and embassies are going to ensure that their citizens register for the scheme and have their status preserved. She also talked of the massive volumes of correspondence that the mission was getting from EU nationals as the deadline approached.
The Home Office has a great many questions to answer on the EU settlement scheme. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was right to pay tribute to all the staff working through the applications. How many EU citizens living in the UK does the Home Office think had not managed to apply by the 30 June deadline? That is an incredibly difficult question to answer, I appreciate, because the Home Office talked about 3.2 million and may have had upwards of 6 million applications—many of which, of course, will be from people not currently living in the United Kingdom. What is the Department doing to reach out to those whom it knows about but who have not applied? Statistics released on 30 June showed that only 5.4 million of the nearly 6 million applications had been processed. How long can applicants expect to wait before finding out their status?
What efforts has the Department made to get to those hardest-to-reach individuals, such as those without internet access? We find that difficult as MPs. Has it taken additional measures, so that people in such circumstances will not fall foul of the law through no fault of their own?
The Minister has said repeatedly, including in the Chamber today, that the Government will not extend the deadline. Indeed, they have not extended the deadline. He said that was not the solution. What is the solution for the estimated 70,000 whom the Government know about who have not applied for settled status but are in receipt of some Government support? What is the solution for those left in legal limbo by missing the deadline? We have heard about some processes put in place, such as the reasonable excuse test, but I hope that we will not see convoys of immigration control vans heading down our streets to deport EU nationals. Will the Minister rule out that option for people who are legally allowed to be here but have not applied for settled status? The Home Office says it is looking to be flexible, but what does flexibility mean in all those cases? What will happen to someone who has not yet applied but will do so at some point in the future when they realise that they must?
Of course, many EU nationals have been in this country for decades and may not think that the scheme applies to them. I hope that maximum flexibility will be allowable for those cases. Surely the easiest way to try to catch all the people whom the Home Office thinks have not applied would have been to extend the deadline, contact them, make sure that they apply and make sure that they are in the scheme as quickly as possible. We all want the scheme to work, because it has to work.
As representatives in this House, we will all have had many constituency cases. We have heard of EU nationals who have been refused on spurious grounds, those who  have found the process difficult to navigate and those who have not applied at all. Hopefully, most of them have now been caught. The scheme has caused a great deal of uncertainty, stress and anxiety for millions of our fellow citizens with whom we share our communities and lives. I hope that, at the end of the debate, the Minister will give assurances on the many questions that Members will pose to him.
It is with great regret that Labour cannot support this motion on such an important issue. It is disappointing that the SNP has decided to use the motion as a clarion call for a border at Berwick, rather than for a debate to stand up for and help our EU friends and family with regard to the settlement scheme. It is a real missed opportunity.
The motion makes reference to the SNP’s desire for a separate Scottish immigration system. I would observe that, given that it will take the Scottish Government up to nine years to build the infrastructure required for the devolution of some social security powers that came in the Scotland Act 2016—powers that my colleagues and I fought hard for—I am unsure how long it will take them to create a system to handle migration. What such a system will indisputably need is a border at Berwick. Any system of differing migration ultimately requires a border between the two countries with different systems, and we know that is the SNP’s desire. When we are debating the consequences for individuals of putting up a border between the UK and the EU, the SNP’s solution is to put up a border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom—or, as some SNP MSPs famously called it, a border job creation scheme.

Stuart McDonald: For goodness’ sake. We do not have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, and we see that system all across the planet—in Canada, Spain, Switzerland and various other countries. The Isle of Man has immigration powers. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for some immigration powers to be handed down and to take part in that discussion, rather than this nonsense about a hard border at Berwick.

Ian Murray: Some years ago I did a little research into the differential of immigration policies. There is great stress in the Canadian system because, as the Minister said, many people land in Quebec, stay for the required period and then move to other parts of Canada. The other provinces in Canada find that incredibly difficult to cope with, and that is exactly what would happen in the context we are talking about—

Stuart McDonald: That is not true.

Ian Murray: It is true of what happens in Canada.

Kevin Foster: I am sure the shadow Secretary of State is also aware that at many of the crossing points from the United States into Canada there is full passport control. Presumably, that is what the SNP envisages at Berwick.

Ian Murray: Well, we do not know what the SNP envisages, because we do not know the proposals; it is just a list of words. Unfortunately, this debate will turn to this issue—the Minister spent some time on it and I am having to spend some time on it—because it was put into the motion. If it was not in the motion, we could have debated the EU settlement scheme and voted  accordingly. That is what is so frustrating about these debates: they always boil down to the constitution. None of these things are answers to the question. I want the Minister to tell us how he will sort the scheme and resolve things for the EU nationals who are not in the system, rather than our having to debate whether the solution is another border at Berwick.
To tackle the shared challenges of our time, of which this is a massive one, we need greater co-operation, which is why we see the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU as the floor of our ambition for our future relationship, unlike this Government, who see it as the ceiling. These issues must be resolved and they can be clearly resolved. Ideas can come forward from the Scottish Government about how to resolve the immigration system, when the two Governments are willing to work together. For example, the former Scottish Labour First Minister Jack McConnell, who is now in the other place, introduced the Fresh Talent scheme in Scotland, which allowed overseas graduates to stay on after university. The scheme was then implemented throughout the United Kingdom.

Stuart McDonald: That is another perfect example of a devolved system that did not require any sort of border at all. It could work perfectly well.

Ian Murray: No, it was not devolved; the UK Government implemented that policy at the insistence of the Scottish First Minister who brought it forward.
In 2019, the Prime Minister famously promised to get Brexit done, yet here we are, 18 months after his Government’s election with a majority, still debating the details of these schemes more than five years after the referendum, with many EU nationals still living in limbo. The Government have not got it done, and will never get it done as they promised the public they would. We need to be getting Brexit to work properly. The EU settlement scheme is another example of where many people are falling through the gaps, with the Government unable to contact them and get them into the scheme.
I say again, regretfully, that we will not be able to back the motion. I hope that the Government will listen to charities or to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), and even now extend the deadline for the thousands of EU citizens who have failed to submit their applications on time through no fault of their own. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how many EU citizens living in the UK the Home Office believes have not managed to apply on time, and what the Department is doing about finding and contacting them and getting them to apply on time. It is particularly important for the Home Office to contact proactively those citizens who are either vulnerable or hard to reach as a result of issues such as a lack of internet access, or who do not think the scheme applies to them because they have been here for so long. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the applications of the nearly half a million people who submitted them before 30 June will be concluded as quickly as possible.
What is missing from these debates is the fact that those affected are our neighbours, our friends, our partners, our colleagues and our fellow citizens. They are human beings, not numbers on a Home Office  screen. Those are the people who have chosen to make this country—our home—their home. Together, we make this country our home. As we chart the next phase of our country’s history, we would do well to remember that we are talking about human beings and we need to make sure that the scheme works for them all.

Rosie Winterton: I remind the House that if colleagues’ speeches are between four and five minutes, we should be able to get everybody in.

Craig Williams: I shall take that guidance to heart, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your leave, before I wade in, I wish to pay tribute to my parliamentary team, because it is with great sadness that I report to the House that my constituency office was attacked this morning. I pay tribute to the police for dealing with it incredibly quickly. Luckily, those involved did not gain entry, but they did break 16 panes of glass and, of course, scared the parliamentary team. Across the House, our teams work day in, day out without, necessarily, the protection that this House affords us now. I put on the record my thanks to my team and the police for dealing with the situation so quickly. However, life goes on, and I will now contribute to this important debate.
Although I very much welcome the tone of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and many of the observations that he made in opening, we need to be incredibly careful about getting our language and tone right to remind all EU citizens who have been living, contributing, working and loving in this country that they are very welcome to stay. We need to reflect on the scale of the achievement of getting 6 million-plus applications. When the Minister sums up, I look forward to him giving us the stats to date, which he will have to hand easier than I. At my last check, 5.4 million had been settled. That is a huge achievement, and it is against the background of the last five years, with huge constitutional arguments and with political parties in this place telling people that they could stop Brexit and causing confusion on a huge scale about what the relationship would look like next.
As a result of what the Government have put in place, and what I ensure in my constituency, people in Wales and the whole of the United Kingdom feel welcome and understand the importance of applying. I very much welcome the tone from the Minister in responding to the debate, and the proportionality that he is now applying to anyone who gets their application in late. It seemed to me that what he outlined in opening was pretty much what the SNP is calling for: proportionality. Clearly, we needed a date to work to, and we needed to get the message out to apply, but I very much welcome the proportional response to those who may have got their application in late.
I want it to go on the record that in a previous life I worked very much on the detail of the withdrawal agreement and the generous package that the UK Government put in place. This is the most generous settlement scheme in the whole of the EU—hon. Members should look at the withdrawal agreement. I am happy to  be intervened on by anyone on the Opposition Benches if they can tell me of a country in the European Union that has a more generous settlement scheme package for UK citizens than we have for EU citizens. We have gone above and beyond to ensure that people feel welcome, and we need to ensure that the language and tone are right in this Chamber to reinforce that message.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to make you impose a limit, but I will comment on the proposed introduction of a border. It disappoints me. I join the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), in looking forward to the day when a motion from the SNP does not try to cause a border for our Celtic cousins. Never mind England and Scotland; you are trying to put a border between Wales and Scotland. We do not want that. We do not want you to leave the Union. You have made some fair points, but adding that last sentence with a demand for a border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom shows your hand, I am afraid. It shows that this debate is more about political point scoring than creating the welcome that you are trying to.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just a reminder to speak through the Chair, rather than directly to other Members. There is a very good reason why that is how we do things here.

Alison Thewliss: This is a debate that I wish we did not need to have, not just because I find it abhorrent that people who made their home here are now faced with proving their right to stay, but because the UK Government have, true to form, made an absolute moger of the process—removing the safety barriers so that people now risk falling off the cliff edge into the shark-infested waters of the hostile environment.
I have had constituents getting in touch about the scheme for some time now, anxious about what it might mean for them. Delays in the scheme, which have been highlighted recently, are nothing new in the experience of my constituents in Glasgow Central. In October 2019, a constituent made his application to the EU settlement scheme and found out that he had been granted pre-settled status only in June 2020. Another applied in June 2019 and although his wife was granted status almost immediately, he was waiting until February 2021, having been moved into the “complicated” pile. A further constituent applied in December 2020 and was granted status only in June this year. All these delays cause considerable stress to individuals. I appreciate that there are checks, processes and wheels turning slowly in the background, but the UK Government knew this was coming. They were warned on multiple occasions by a wheen of organisations and experts that layering this on top of an already struggling immigration system would cause problems, yet it feels from the experience of my constituents that nothing was done.
There are also uncertainties and grey areas. People who have never had to question their right to live here are now having to do so. A constituent and friend of mine, Toni Guigliano, has lived most of his life in Scotland. He considers himself a dual national—an Italian Scot—but his ID for work purposes was an  Italian passport, so he has had to apply for settled status to ensure he is able to continue to live his life here. He is certain there will be many others like him who do not believe they need to apply. To make matters worse, the EU settlement scheme helpline told him he did not absolutely need to apply, but that was contradicted by an email I received from UK Visas and Immigration today, which would suggest that he does, as his Italian passport is not proof of a right to work. What an absolute shambles!
The lack of a physical document has been raised by many constituents as a deficiency in the scheme. Relying on having a mobile phone with battery sufficiently charged to allow someone to get through the border as they come back from their holidays is far from ideal for most people. For the digitally excluded, this is also a real problem. For those required to prove eligibility to their employer or a whole host of Government agencies, the digital systems appear not yet to be in place or working properly, as constituents have already found and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) highlighted. In a response to me from the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, it was evident that the “view and prove” service is not yet working on a cross-Government basis. In the letter, he stated that, for individuals accessing services provided by Departments and other public authorities,
“e.g. benefits and healthcare, the Home Office will increasingly make the relevant information about an individual’s status available automatically through system to system checks, at the point at which they seek to access the public services.”
Although I understand this may be working to an extent in the Department for Work and Pensions, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and NHS England, that is not by any matter or means the full spectrum of services that people interact with. A system should be in place right now, not at some vague time in the future. It is yet another reason to remove or extend the deadline if the UK Government have not even finished their own homework on this issue.
There are further consequences for EU nationals as a result of the Tories’ Brexit shambles. Another constituent who has lived in Scotland since May 2016 has been allocated pre-settled status and has applied for settled status. He has always worked, but he lost his job in hospitality in early 2020 and went to stay with family in Italy, unfortunately getting stuck there during the lockdown. His universal credit claim was refused as he was not in the UK, and he could not apply for jobs, not knowing when he would be able to return to his home in Glasgow. As a result, he is now struggling to get by, destitute until he gets an answer, because he has been unable to claim his benefits with pre-settled status. He told me:
“For me this situation is really distressing. I feel really discriminated and humiliated from this government. They are killing my hopes and my dreams.”
I have encountered other cases where the DWP has raised questions over EU nationals’ eligibility and unfairly denied benefits on the basis of the habitual residency test. This should not be the future EU nationals face; the vast majority work and contribute but, as we all know, anyone can require to access support because of the loss of a job or illness. They should not face barriers in their path, in the way that no recourse to public funds already causes destitution and serious harm to so many.
Another compelling reason to extend the deadline is the bureaucratic backlog caused by coronavirus. A constituent who came to the UK in July 2020 has been completely stuck due to agencies being closed—understandably—because of covid-19. She was not able to get a national insurance number, as the jobcentres were closed, or a job, because so many places were not hiring. She was also not able to register with a GP, set up a bank account or obtain a UK driving licence. Now she faces having her claim refused because she cannot absolutely prove she was in the UK before December 2020. So I ask how the Minister expects people to prove their rights when the very agencies we would all expect to assist have not been available to people.
Similarly, another constituent seeking to register his children under the EU settlement scheme found it more difficult, as their passports had expired and renewals were more difficult due to covid. Although I appreciate that passports were not always required to register, I am sure that many others would have found themselves in similar circumstances, panicking as the deadline approached. I hope that this will be taken into account as a “reasonable excuse”, but if there had not been a deadline, that would have removed a great deal of anxiety from the situation.
The future of work for EU nationals is undoubtedly now more complex. The situation has made it more difficult to travel and work, and many may now choose to move elsewhere as a result. We have all benefited from the talent and expertise of EU nationals and the all-round contribution they have made to our communities, but what the UK Government have sought to do through Brexit and through these rules is to make life harder for our friends and neighbours. As the MP with the highest immigration case load in Scotland, I can tell Members that life is already pretty hard for many people and that the UK Government’s utterly despicable Nationality and Borders Bill seeks to make the situation even worse.
Scotland did not vote for this. We voted to remain in the EU. We see the benefits of migration, as a nation who have sent our own out around the world, and we stand by those who have done us the honour of choosing Scotland as their home. I look forward to the day soon when we are able not only to show people our Scottish hospitality, but to have the legislation to back that up.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just another reminder that if we think of each other, everyone can get in, but I did say between four and five minutes.

Angela Richardson: I will try to speed through my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am delighted to speak on the subject of the EU settlement scheme, as it provides us with a great opportunity to reflect on the invaluable contributions that our friends and neighbours from the EU bring to our country and to our local communities. We have colleagues on both sides of the House who were born in, or grew up in, an EU country. We in this House also rely on the support of our staff, many of whom came to this country from Europe. And who can forget the tireless work of those EU nationals who work for the various parliamentary services that keep us safe, ensuring that the work of our  Parliament keeps going and making our days brighter in this place. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking them for all their hard work and dedication.
In my own constituency, I see EU nationals on the frontline of our fight against covid-19 as doctors, nurses, paramedics and carers and in many other capacities. Many of the children in Guildford, Cranleigh and our villages are taught at school by teachers from the EU. Our communities are made stronger thanks to the contribution of EU nationals, who are our neighbours, our friends and our partners in building the fairer, greener and healthier country we want. Working together is the best way we can build back better after the pandemic. That is why I was happy whenever my office was able to assist constituents with their applications to the EU settlement scheme or by taking their feedback to Ministers. It is also why I am happy to help constituents outside the EU, too, and I have had many successes on immigration matters in the short 18 months since I was elected.
The Government settlement scheme, which was set up in 2019, sent out a very clear message: we want our friends to stay and enjoy all the rights they have been enjoying for years. I was therefore heartened to hear that the scheme has seen 6 million applications, of which 5.4 million have been met with a positive outcome. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) for the recent update on those numbers. I am also pleased that those applicants who have not received their decision will have their rights protected and will receive a certificate of application that they can use if they need to prove their immigration status until a decision is made on their case.
I was pleased to hear that we will continue to take a pragmatic and flexible approach in considering late applicants and their rights, that we will as a priority continue to encourage those eligible to secure their status to apply, and that each case will be based on its unique circumstances. The comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister at the Dispatch Box today about reasonable grounds for late applicants are extremely welcome and will be very reassuring for my constituents. That, alongside the Government’s £8 million investment in advertising and £22 million investment in ensuring that vulnerable applicants are given all the support they require, clearly illustrates our commitment not to leave anyone behind when it comes to protecting their rights in this country.
The scheme was born out of the spirit of friendship and co-operation we share with our European allies, and it mirrors similar programmes put in place for British citizens living in EU countries, albeit running for a longer period of time. I hope that that spirit will extend our friendship beyond Europe as we introduce a fair, points-based immigration system not too dissimilar to the one that the SNP advocated in its 2014 independence White Paper, only now to call it unjustifiable and damaging to Scotland.
Having emigrated to this country from New Zealand, I know how important our ties with the rest of the world are. I commend the Government for taking their responsibilities towards immigrants so seriously, especially as we build global Britain—a place where fairness, the rule of law and respect for each other prevails.

Alexander Stafford: I find it bizarre that the Scottish National party has chosen to use its valuable Opposition day slot to debate the EU settlement scheme, and I am in no doubt that the vast majority of Scots agree with me. There is little to address in the EU settlement scheme, as the SNP knows full well. For the SNP, it is all about sowing division, stirring up ill-founded resentment and stoking the same tired old debates on the 2016 Brexit vote. The truth is that the EU referendum was years ago, and we have since left the bloc for good. All Scots and all Britons want us to move forward and focus on improving this country.
The SNP may regret the end of freedom of movement, but the vast majority of British people wanted to end it. It is about our having the power and national sovereignty to decide who we should admit into our society, from anywhere in the world. The EU immigration system was ludicrous, as was recognised across Scotland. The fact the SNP is still in favour of it is baffling and quite irresponsible.
It is testimony to the settlement scheme’s popularity that we predicted 3.7 million EU citizens would go through the process but instead, as we have heard today, over 6 million have done so. That is a great success. The simplicity, generosity and, some would say, leniency of the scheme reflects this Government’s desire to make life easy for those settled Europeans who contribute to our country and make it what it is. It is therefore disingenuous of the SNP to level any accusations against the Government of making the process difficult or arcane—the numbers show that is simply not the case. It has worked incredibly well.
By trying to extend or scrap the deadline, the SNP is seeking an eternal transition that defies reality and defies logic. It is clear that the SNP is clinging on to any vestige of what it thinks relates to the EU, hankering after a broken union while destroying the precious one we have. The SNP hangs on to the coat tails of the EU because it has no confidence in Scotland. Any right-thinking Briton knows that the settlement status window must end, and they want it to end.
Tagging on to the end of the motion the transfer of immigration powers from Westminster to create a Scottish migration system and Scottish visa is pure madness. It is part of the SNP’s fantasy to further isolate Scotland for the sake of division. This move would harm Scottish people, not to mention being completely impracticable, with a hard border being inevitable. How can the SNP seriously favour immigration rights for EU citizens into Scotland over Scots’ rights to access the rest of the UK? It is bizarre. How can the SNP favour EU immigration over what is best for Scotland’s young and vulnerable?
It is not possible for one country to have two different, opposing immigration systems, and it is not compatible with the devolution settlement or desirable for the people of Scotland. It is yet another example of the SNP causing trouble and sowing the seeds of division, without any concrete policies to improve Scots’ lives.
Our UK immigration policy keeps us safe and attracts the best and brightest to our shores, whether they settle in London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast. It is bizarre that the SNP advocated a points-based immigration system in 2014, yet changes its tune when it smells political opportunity. It is rank hypocrisy.
It seems to have passed the SNP by that we have actually left the EU, and the SNP is wilfully ignoring all the opportunities now available to Scotland outside the EU, whether it is Scottish exports, farmers, fisheries, the repatriation of powers from Brussels to Edinburgh, UK business support or state aid. This latest attempt to score political points on the impressive EU settlement scheme underlines the fact that a Scotland without the SNP would surely be better off.
I am conscious of time so, on a lighter note, although football may not be coming home to Hampden, it may still be seeking settled status here in Britain. I have no doubt that every Scot, including every SNP Member here today, will be cheering on England tonight as the sole home nations representative left in the tournament.

Philippa Whitford: During the Brexit referendum, the Prime Minister promised that nothing would change for EU citizens in the UK. Yet everything has changed, as millions of people who had settled here have had to apply for permission to remain in their homes and jobs. Conservative Members dismissed this as no big deal, but my husband is German, and, after spending more than 30 years working as a doctor in our NHS, he felt as if the rug had suddenly been pulled from under his feet.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) highlighted the importance of language, and I agree with him, but while our First Minister in Scotland reached out to EU citizens on the morning after the referendum, the language in this place described them as bargaining chips and playing cards. The most upsetting thing for my husband was when the former Prime Minister described EU citizens as “queue jumpers”, implying they had somehow cheated the immigration system to settle here. Such language already made EU citizens feel unwelcome even before Brexit was completed, and it contributed to an almost 90% drop in the number of EU nurses coming to the UK. That is a loss the four national health services could ill afford, especially with the challenges of this last year.
Apart from the emotional upheaval felt by many EU families such as mine, there are practical issues with the settled status system. Instead of automatically being granted indefinite leave to remain, as promised by the Prime Minister, it is an application process, which can be refused. While EU citizens would still have had to register, there would have been no question of refusal, and vulnerable groups such as the elderly or children in care would not now be in danger of becoming illegal. Only 2% of applications have been refused outright, but that is over 100,000 people, and 43% have been granted only the much less favourable pre-settled status, often despite living in the UK for many years. There is a real danger that many with permanent residency assume it means what it says and that they are secure, and do not understand that they now need to apply for settled status. Women in particular can struggle to gain full settled status if, owing to caring responsibilities, they do not have an unbroken tax record.
A widespread concern among EU citizens, as we have heard this afternoon, is the lack of physical proof of their status, particularly with the example of Windrush before them. Having to provide an online document creates problems for those with poor digital access, and  some landlords and employers are already excluding EU citizens from the opportunity to work or rent a home as they simply cannot be bothered with the hassle. Whether it is a lack of health and social care staff, farm workers, HGV drivers or academic researchers, the UK will be poorer without the EU citizens who no longer come to live and work here and contribute to our society. This is particularly an issue in Scotland because of our ageing demographics and the risk of rural depopulation. The UK Government’s dismissal of Scottish requirements simply highlights the need for Scotland to be able to set our own immigration policies, and Government Members who dismiss that simply ignore the fact that Ireland still has freedom of movement.
Freedom of movement was the biggest benefit of EU membership that we all gained as individuals, and it worked in both directions. We have had the right to live, love, work or study in any one of 31 countries, yet we have taken that away from the younger generation, while EU citizens here contribute to our public services, communities and economy, as well as being our family, friends and neighbours. So despite the Prime Minister’s original Brexit promises, I can tell you that many EU citizens do not feel secure in the UK, but rather feel unwelcome and unsettled.

Steve Double: I rise to celebrate the fact that almost 6 million EU citizens have chosen to remain here and indicated they wish to make this place their home. I appreciate it might be difficult for the SNP to comprehend why, when it is seeking to leave the United Kingdom, a number of EU citizens greater than the total population of Scotland have chosen to stay in the United Kingdom. I think that puts the scale of this into perspective: the number of people who have applied for settled status and been granted it is actually greater than the total population of Scotland.
I want to place on record my thanks to the Home Office, the ministerial team, former Ministers and all the staff who have made the scheme so simple, so easy to apply and so successful. Compared with other immigration schemes of the past, the EUSS is a breath of fresh air. It is so simple and straightforward that it can be done on a smartphone ,and, as we have heard, very many people have applied for it. The SNP do it a disservice by scaremongering, trying to present a picture of this scheme as difficult, uncertain, and something that applicants might have problems with. The reality is that for the vast majority of people, it is very easy and straightforward, and in some cases that I know of, they secure their settled status within hours of applying. We need to celebrate just how great this scheme has been.
By the end of last month, as has been said, almost 6 million people had applied for the EUSS. When we set up the scheme, we thought that only about 3.4 million people were likely to apply. That puts into perspective just how successful the scheme has been. Some have said that there are people who may be unaware that they need to apply for settled status, but my experience is that there are very few. The Government have done an incredible job working with local authorities and other bodies across the UK to get the message out, and the conversations I have had with EU citizens in Cornwall show that they have all been absolutely aware of the  scheme and how to apply for it, so again I think the Home Office needs to be commended for the incredible work it has done.
Some are calling for the scheme to be extended. I fully appreciate that the SNP wants to continue free movement and see this as a way of doing so through the back door, but we promised in our manifesto that we would end free movement, and it is right that the scheme has a deadline and comes to an end. However, I welcome the pragmatic and proportionate approach that the Minister has taken to dealing with those who may have applied to the scheme late.
We should celebrate the EU settled status scheme as a great success. It has demonstrated that, far from the claims made by those who want to paint our country now that we have left the EU as a closed country—an unfriendly place, a place that does not welcome people—exactly the opposite is true: we welcome all those from the EU who have been here over the years and who wish to make their home here. The scheme has been a success, and it demonstrates the very best of our nation. We should celebrate that fact, so I say to the SNP that I know this debate is not really about the EU settled status scheme: it is about having another go at the Westminster Government and working to their own agenda. However, the reality is that the scheme has been successful, and we should welcome it and celebrate all those who have applied to stay here.

Christine Jardine: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for his comprehensive and detailed explanation of the problems, obstacles, and failings of the settled status scheme system. I agree with him wholeheartedly about those drawbacks and failings, but as much as I am impressed by his explanation, I am astonished that he cannot recognise that he is also reciting a litany of the problems that Scotland and England would face if the SNP were to have its way over independence.
However, just as this is not another rerun of a debate on Brexit—the damage to our trade, the obstacles in the way of small businesses, and the problems that Brexit will create as we recover from it—nor should it be a debate about independence, because it is about something far more important than either of those things. It is about people: people who have come here, contributed, paid their taxes and raised their family here and regard this place as home, like so many of my constituents—almost 3,000, in fact.
One particular letter I received sums up this issue for me: “Dear Christine, I am a French citizen, having lived and worked in Scotland for more than 20 years. My husband is also French, and we have two children aged 12 and 9, both born in Scotland, and we have serious worries.” Their worries are about the future, about settled status, whether they will face another Windrush-type scandal, and how much it will cost them for their son, who was born here, to have British citizenship and a passport.
While I accept Ministers’ assurances about the extended deadline and that we will not face another Windrush, I do not believe that the Government have addressed the  fact that so many people like my constituents no longer feel welcome in the country that they made home and to which they have contributed.
There is also, frankly, panic among many people who live and work here, who perhaps married British citizens and are now confused about exactly what their future will hold. I do not blame them. We know that applications are taking longer to process than was promised and that the process is not as straightforward as was originally suggested. People have to make separate applications for children. We have heard all these promises today, but what the Government promised, as with so many things, has not materialised. We are not treating people with respect. What about all those still waiting for the decisions?
Much as I agree with the Scottish National party that the loss of freedom of movement is regrettable and about the situation that EU citizens now find themselves in, I am afraid that I cannot support the motion today because of that last sentence about immigration. Immigration should not, I believe, be the responsibility of one part of the United Kingdom. Yes, there are fruit pickers in Scotland who need staff and the NHS is calling out for migrants to come here and work—on that point, I feel that a great number of migrants in this country deserve indefinite leave to remain as a thank you for the contribution that they have made during covid.
But the need is not restricted to Scotland. Fruit pickers are needed in Cornwall as much as in Scotland; NHS staff are needed in Essex as much as in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) pointed out, if it took as long to set up an immigration system as it has a benefit system, we would wait a long time before we got the people we needed.
Although I sympathise with much of what the SNP has said today, I regret that yet again an issue has been used as an opportunity to promote independence—and not, I believe, the best interests of EU citizens in this country. They should not become another weapon in the independence battle.

Virginia Crosbie: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine).
The decision to leave the EU was taken through a referendum. This was the will of the British people with all that entailed, including the loss of freedom of movement for EU citizens. It is difficult to understand the concerns that the Scottish National party is citing about the EU settlement scheme, given the efforts that the UK Government put in to ensuring that as many EU nationals as possible who are living in the UK had the support they needed to apply for settled status.
More than 1,500 Home Office staff were working on the EU settlement scheme. When it opened in March 2019, the Home Office estimated that between 3.5 million and 4.1 million EU nationals would apply for settled or pre-settled status. It is testament to the robust nature of the systems that the Government set up and the work put in by the Home Office team that over 6 million applications have been handled by the scheme. Most are turned around in five working days and over 5.1 million grants of status have been confirmed. The application figures are clear—they are a clear demonstration of the hard work that the Home Office, the DWP and other  partners have put in to reaching out to EU nationals across the UK through many different channels, including employers, landlords, charities and public bodies.
In my constituency of Ynys Môn, with its close ties to Ireland and direct link to Dublin, the Home Office engaged with key local employers such as Stena to ensure that their EU staff understood the requirements and could access the systems that they needed. To support EU nationals wishing to apply over the past two years, the Government have committed significant support and guidance. The EU settlement resolution centre, set up for those needing general assistance, has handled more than 1.5 million callers and responded to more than half a million online contacts. There was the assisted digital service for those without the appropriate skills, confidence or experience to complete online applications. Some £22 million of grant funding was given to 72 organisations across the UK to reach and give support to more than 310,000 vulnerable citizens and their families, including victims of human trafficking or domestic abuse. For those whose applications were submitted before the deadline but are still being considered, their right to live in the UK will be extended until a decision is reached.
Recognising that there may be good reasons for some to have missed the deadline, the Home Office has a late application process, and that means that those who could not or who did not apply for good reason, such as being in a coercive or abusive relationship, or who lacked the physical or mental capacity to do so will still be able to apply. It is right that there has been a settled status process because, going forward, EU nationals will be subject to the same immigration processes as people from other countries. It is difficult to see what more this Government could have done to ensure that those who have a right to settled status have had the opportunity to apply.
Along with my hon. Friend the Minister, I fully recognise and appreciate the contribution that EU nationals make to our lives and our economy in the UK. Over the past 18 months, EU nationals working in hospitals such as Ysbyty Gwynedd and in other key worker and frontline positions have been a critical part of our fight against covid-19. I end by saying that the UK will continue to have close ties to our continental neighbours and we still, as we always have, will warmly welcome the individuals, the skills and the cultural diversity that our migrant population brings to us.

Chris Law: The Minister boasts that the EU settlement scheme has been “a huge success”, with more than 6 million applications received. Let me be clear from the outset: these are not 6 million applicants. They are 6 million individuals who are our family members, our neighbours, our friends and our colleagues and their loved ones. Shamefully, they have had to face needless anxiety and bureaucracy ever since the disastrous vote to leave the EU five years ago. Each one of these individuals has a story of how they came to live here, why this is now their home, and why they should not have been put through this unnecessary, traumatic process simply to maintain the rights that they have always had.
I was particularly taken aback by the story of one of my constituents, Irena Jendrycha. Irena is 77 years old and was born in a Nazi concentration camp in 1943.  She was scheduled to be executed but was saved when the camp was liberated at the end of the war. Incinerators were being prepared for the extermination of all the camp’s inhabitants at 12 o’clock that day but Irena and her mother were thankfully saved just in time, 10 minutes away from death, a moment Irena describes as an act of God.
After the camp’s liberation, Irena and her mother were sent to a refugee camp in Italy where her mother met Irena’s stepfather, after he had been released from a Russian gulag at the end of the war. As a family, they were transported to the UK and, at the age of four, Irena settled in Scotland. She has spent her life here since then and, in fact, has never even left the UK after arriving all those decades ago.
I am telling this story because Irena is one of the many millions who has had to apply for the EU settlement scheme. She is one of the UK’s last holocaust survivors and told me that the application process made her relive every horror of her past. In her own words, she described it by saying that
“any goodness within me was sucked out of me like a syringe”.
This is morally reprehensible and should shame the Government, but it is the reality of this scheme and their hostile environment. It is the consequence of being dragged far right by the UK Independence party and the Brexit party and treating individuals who contribute so much as mere statistics or a migration target to reach. I am sure that Irena is not the only one who has been left feeling like an outcast with no sense of belonging as a result of having to go through the scheme’s process to remain in the place they call home. Simply put, this scheme clearly demonstrates that the Tories are living up to their reputation as the nasty party. Indeed, Irena made it clear that she was appalled by politicians who every year will pose for pictures, speak in debates and attend events remembering the holocaust, yet are willing to make people like her feel unwelcome due to this hostile regime.
Irena has one question for this Government:
“Why are you putting me through this? I have to re-live it, through every horror… I went through this at school and now I am going through it again.”
I have a question for the Minister: after hearing all this, how can he judge the scheme as what he calls a huge success? This is not a country that I want to live in. The Scottish Government have always said that EU nationals are welcome here. The contrast in the message from the SNP and that from Conservative Members is crystal clear.
Finally, Irena asked me to tell her story today, as she wants to be a voice for the many who suffer in silence. I am deeply humbled that I have been able to do that. I want to assure Irena and all our citizens who call Scotland their home that, despite the cruel, callous and shameful approach of this UK Government, Scotland is their home and they should feel thoroughly welcome. I and all my SNP colleagues will continue to defend their rights wherever they come from and whatever their story is.

Jerome Mayhew: It is a pleasure to follow those comments from the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), although I disagree with almost all of them.
The settled status scheme has shown us that more than 6 million people have taken advantage of the opportunities that the United Kingdom offers and moved to this country. The first point to make is that this shows how successful the scheme has been. We have already heard that it is by far the most generous scheme in Europe, simple to apply for from home with a good app, well-advertised and well-supported by agencies. The numbers show how well the scheme has been developed and applied by the Government. Now that the scheme deadline has passed, it has been suggested, not least by the previous speaker, that applicants for this settled status might be at risk of what is described as a hostile environment. Yet the Government guidance to civil servants on how to approach applications after the deadline has been published and it simply explodes that myth. Rather than being a hostile environment, civil servants have been instructed to give applicants the benefit of the doubt when discrepancies arise, and to show a proportionate response. If mistakes in an application have been made, they should be pointed out to the applicant who then should be given a reasonable amount of time to correct them and resubmit without criticism. Applications out of time will also be permitted indefinitely if there are reasonable grounds for the delay.
This is the opposite of a hostile environment. To my mind the Government have bent over backwards, and continue to do so, to facilitate applications. They have commissioned £8 million of advertising to raise awareness. A wide range of support has also been offered and made available online, over the telephone if it has been needed, as well as from 72 organisations across the United Kingdom funded by the Government to help in the application process, and it has worked as the huge take-up proves.
Looking at the statistics, there is a key number that jumps out: just 290,000 out of more than 6 million EU citizens have chosen to make Scotland their home. These are figures that have been unaffected by any constraints on immigration. It is an historical measurement, so it is a measurement of the relative attraction of Scotland under the SNP to immigrants. Rather than seeking devolution of immigration powers, as the motion demands, the SNP might want to reflect on why it is that so many of these welcomed immigrants who have voted with their feet to make a new life for themselves here in the United Kingdom have decided not to make that life in Scotland.
The SNP has been in continuous power in Scotland since 2007, so this is the SNP Scotland that has been judged by European Union immigrants. What does it say about the anti-business approach of the SNP with the resulting underperformance of the Scottish economy with the SNP in charge, creating fewer job opportunities and successful careers? We should not forget that between 2007, when the SNP took over, and 2019, the Scottish economy has grown by 9.3%. The UK as a whole over the same period has grown by 16.5%, and that is including the drag of the SNP’s Scottish economy. What does it say about the prospect of having to pay the SNP’s higher taxes as an entrepreneur in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom? What does it say about the prospect of sending their children to the SNP schools that are going backwards in the international league tables when compared with the rest of the United Kingdom?
With the relentless focus on separation by the SNP, how welcoming is that message for immigrants, whether from the EU, the rest of the world, or the rest of the United Kingdom? Creating a border at Berwick is the last thing to encourage inward migration. This is another example of the SNP obsession with separation damaging the real interests of the country.

Wendy Chamberlain: The EU settlement scheme should never have needed to be put in place, and it is a travesty that our European friends and neighbours who have been living lawfully in this country, in some cases for many decades, should be forced into a situation where they have to apply for, and prove, their basic rights. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), who I have the pleasure of following, hailed the scheme as a success, but he neglected to mention that the Government underestimated by 100% the number of EU citizens actually in the UK. Members of this Government promised that nothing would change—a promise that was quickly broken. The situation is now only worsening for the citizens to whom that promise was made and who are now arguably subject to a hostile environment. I noted the comments from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who is no longer in her place, on the steps that the Home Office had taken, but it does not sound like a particularly warm welcome to require those in coercive relationships to detail such trauma to prove that they have the right to stay in this country.
I have been inundated with correspondence from constituents to do with the EU settlement scheme, and I find it hard to believe that Conservative Members have not also heard from their constituents about that. I have heard from constituents who are appalled by the scheme and the risk it poses to their European friends and neighbours, and from those who are struggling to apply to the scheme themselves. I wrote to the Home Secretary on their behalf last month to highlight the issues that they raised, and I know that other Members have raised some of those issues this afternoon.
Those issues included, first, glitches on the app preventing the applications from being made. The Home Office has proudly said that it will be a digital system that will benefit EU citizens, but if the app does not work now, it is hard to trust that the system will work later. Secondly, there was supposed to be easy access to paper forms for those who need them. There are lots of reasons for people to need a paper form even when the app is working properly, but they can often be accessed only by phoning the helpline and getting them sent out in the post. That is ridiculous for a system that is meant to be making the most of digital technology, and disastrous for those who needed to apply by the deadline but could not get through on the helpline.
A third issue was that people had been unable to reach an adviser on the EU settlement scheme resolution centre helpline. I have received letters from those in considerable distress, because they are trying to apply for the scheme but either need assistance or have called the helpline repeatedly throughout the day over multiple days and have never been able to get through.
Finally, I sought an assurance that those who were unable to apply through no fault of their own would not be subject to a hostile environment. Some weeks later, and past the deadline to apply, I have yet to receive  a response. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an update in his closing remarks on when that will be forthcoming.
Here we are, one week past the deadline to apply, and I, like many Members, am still hearing about these problems. I have been working with the organisation Fife4europe, which works with EU citizens from across the kingdom of Fife, covering not just my constituency of North East Fife but those of Dunfermline and West Fife, Glenrothes, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. In my most recent conversation with the organisation earlier today, I was told about a number of issues that people are continuing to have with the scheme. I heard stories of parents not knowing they needed to apply for a child; of people being unable to access passports due to the closure of embassies; of incomprehensible forms and legal terminology; and, again, of that inability to get through to the resolution centre. These are not case studies for a campaign; they are anecdotes about what is happening to friends and neighbours, and I have no doubt that there are those experiencing the same thing throughout my constituency and the country as a whole.
I have also heard a huge amount of fear and confusion over how to apply and what might happen if the deadline was missed. What if those people were unable to access and fully complete the written forms? What about those people who have been unable to get the appropriate evidence to support their application by the cut-off point? I have heard that many people have ultimately put in incomplete applications just to get a certificate of application and get more time to jump over the hurdles set for them by the Home Office. By the deadline last week, there was an estimated backlog of 400,000 cases, and it is now estimated to be up to 570,000, according to the latest statistics.
It is clear the Home Office’s inflexibility is just creating extra work for itself and adding to the anxiety of those left in limbo—and it is indeed limbo. The Home Office is providing a certificate of application, but that does nothing to demonstrate somebody’s long-term rights to potential landlords or employers. Landlords and employers are looking for candidates who will be around in six months’ time, and it would be understandable for them to prefer those candidates who can give that guarantee. I ask the Minister: what steps are being taken to deal with this backlog and when will the uncertainty be over for those hundreds of thousands of people?
What happens to those who were missed: those who did not know about the scheme despite the advertising, those who are not on the electoral roll or those who do not use the internet? The cut-off disproportionately impacts the vulnerable, those in social care, the old, the young, looked-after children and care leavers: those who need extra support but have now been made subject to the hostile environment. What support is there for them? What are this Government doing to ensure that those rights are upheld?
Even when somebody has managed to apply, we know that it is not plain sailing. We have been told time and time again that this is a digital status because that is easier, cheaper and safer, but it seems to be far from easy to make changes to that status—changes that are foreseeable over the course of a lifetime, such as getting new a passport with a new ID number, or getting married and changing one’s name. Can the Minister explain how something that we were told was so simple can be more cumbersome than getting a new passport?
Speaking of ID cards, this Government seem happy to produce some ID cards, so why do they continue to reject physical proof of status? We are happy to use vaccine passports. If the Government say that they can find the money to produce voter ID cards, does the Minister agree that providing EU citizens with a usable physical proof of status is not too much of an ask? Clearly, much more needs to be done.

Kirsten Oswald: I speak as the representative of the vibrant and diverse community in East Renfrewshire, whose population reflects a long tradition of migration into Scotland. The EU nationals in East Renfrewshire are our family, friends and neighbours. Many of them served on the frontline during the pandemic in our NHS, in our public services or in other essential roles.
The latest figures show that there have been more than 1,200 applications from East Renfrewshire alone, and that is before we get to those who missed out. How can they get absolute certainty over the right to live and remain, as they were promised by the Prime Minister? They need that or they face unemployment, homelessness and the refusal of benefits or healthcare. We should all be concerned about that, and we should be concerned to minimise the chances of people ending up in such distress through no fault of their own because the Tory Government are hellbent on pursuing their destructive race to the Brexit bottom—no matter our friends, neighbours, colleagues or Scotland’s vote.
People in East Renfrewshire voted 74% to remain in the EU, and yet here they are having to deal with these serious issues in large numbers when they did not ask to have their lives thrown into turmoil. A major issue is that the UK Government try to provide reassurance, but no one can believe a word that they say. Their response to legitimate concerns can be summarised as, “Trust us—there’s nothing to see here.” The reality that we have all seen played out has been somewhat different. Anyone who wants a masterclass on why we cannot rely on a word that the Government say only needs to watch the Prime Minister tell a Northern Irish businessman that there will be no customs declarations on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, and then have a wee look at what the UK Government website says today.
The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary said after Brexit that there would be
“no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK”
and that they would
“automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain”.
There was no mention of a deadline to redeem that pledge. The concern is that unless guarantees are put in place now, the Tories might do what they did—indeed, what they continue to do—to the Windrush generation, tying applicants to the Windrush compensation scheme in a web of confusion, delay and further disrespect.
Last week, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) questioned the Prime Minister over an extension to the deadline, the Prime Minister brushed it off in his usual “Who cares about the details?” fashion. Within hours of that dismissive response, the system creaked to breaking point under more than 50,000 applications that were made as the deadline approached. The deadline was  extended, but instead of giving a reasonable extension, the UK Government shifted it by just nine hours. If an extension were possible, why not show good faith and make it a reasonable one? After all, the processing of applications will continue for months. Instead, late applications might wait months to be processed, leaving people unable to start jobs, enter new tenancies, obtain driving licences or make new benefit claims.
Scotland needs our EU citizens. We need workers in industries such as transport, hospitality, food, health and many other sectors, but the hostile environment created by this Tory Government runs counter to the needs of our economy and our values as a welcoming, open nation. Scotland needs an immigration system that works for our society. It is clear that that will not be delivered while crucial policy areas such as migration, citizenship, asylum and refugee policy remain under Westminster’s control. That is why Scotland needs the full powers that will come only with independence.

Kenny MacAskill: I am happy to support the SNP in this motion; the Alba party endorses it. It seems to us to be a microcosm of a wider issue, which is the diverging of two societies and different positions that have understandably been taken by their Governments, reflecting, perhaps, the wider views of their people. South of the border, immigration is being seen as a danger, a threat and something that has to be clamped down on, whereas in Scotland immigration is seen as a necessity, an opportunity and something to be supported. That is now reflected in the political directions of the two Governments.
Immigration has been with Scotland since almost time immemorial. It is reflected in our place names. Argyll, after all, is the land of the eastern Gael; it is where people came to when they originally came from Ireland. Sutherland may be in the north as part of Scotland, but it is actually the south lands for those coming from Scandinavia or the north. That has continued as people have come from south of the border, Italy and Ireland, and now from India, China and Africa. But especially in recent years they have come from the European Union, particularly from central and eastern Europe. That has been a good thing. They have come here and made Scotland their home. It is only a few years back that one in 10 children born in Scotland had a Polish mother. They have made Scotland a better place, enhanced our communities and benefited our economy.
The flipside to immigration is emigration. That is also why immigration is required in Scotland, because as well as immigration forging our nation, emigration has scarred our nation. Sometimes it has come about through hardship, or indeed through brutality, as with the highland clearances. More often, people have left for opportunity or for love. Equally, though, many people have had to go because they lack opportunities due to the mismanagement of the economy, especially by British Governments in recent years. Those of us who grew up in Scotland in the 1970s and ’80s have seen our school classmates from the years before having to go south or abroad. That is why there is hardly a Scottish family who does not have a relative in Australia, Canada or some other place in the new world. That  gives a different perspective. It is why we recognise that emigration is part of what happens while immigration is something that we should have and is of benefit to our society.
The EU settlement scheme is causing fear and alarm, as people have narrated today. It is causing disruption in our economy, including in agriculture, hospitality and the HGV sector. Even today, our Transport Secretary is having to announce changes when things would be much easier if we just had the available labour that was primarily coming from eastern European drivers. That is why the Scottish economy requires immigration. Our economy as well as our society is being damaged by this. Some of the proposed changes by the Government in extending the scheme are of course welcome. The situation can be ameliorated. Any decision to take a view that is much more supportive of those who, for whatever reason, fail to apply is to be welcomed, but it does not go far enough.
Scotland requires its own immigration policy. I will not go into the question of an immigration policy at independence, as that is for another day, but immigration can most certainly be dealt with in a devolved system. That has previously been talked about by the Tory Government, and its failure to be delivered is shameful and is damaging us. It is available, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, in the Isle of Man. It also applies in south Australia, where there are distinct needs for different economic areas such as New South Wales or Victoria. It also applies in Quebec, as has been mentioned. I listened to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) going on about how the policy was apparently opposed in some areas of Canada, but let us be quite clear that no federal Government in Canada has sought to remove the scheme whereby there is a distinct immigration policy for the province of Quebec. No mainstream political party in Quebec, as far as I am aware, is seeking to remove it or would seek to abandon it. That tells us that even Quebec Tories are more radical on immigration than Scottish Labour or the Scottish Liberal Democrats, who do not seem to want something that applies even in countries that operate with a federal or devolved structure. Scotland requires the same powers that are not only available in the Isle of Man but apply in Quebec and in Australia.
I support this motion not simply to stand up for those immigrants who have come here from the EU and who make our country a better place, but to make sure that our country can be the land that we know it can be. To do that, as throughout past centuries going back millennia, we require people to come here to make this their home, work here and make our society better. To achieve that, we require powers of immigration that can be dealt with without independence. But if the Tory Government will not give us that, then there is no alternative but to obtain independence to deliver the society that our people are entitled to live in.

Claire Hanna: Like other Northern Irish MPs, I have spent a lot of time in the Chamber, in Select Committee meetings and in the media talking about the free movement of goods and about people’s emotions and identity in the context of Northern Ireland. However, there has been much less  discussion of the plight and the rights of EU nationals who have been living, working and contributing in our community. The free movement of sausages has demanded a lot more political time and energy than the lives and horizons of our neighbours, friends and colleagues.
We know that, following the referendum, uncertainty was created in the lives and careers of many EU nationals, and that chill set in long before the settlement scheme was announced. Employers were not sure whether a person would be around long enough to justify the investment in a training course. Would a landlord be allowed to sign a one-year lease with a particular tenant? Would it not just be less hassle and less admin to hire a local worker, even if they were less qualified? There has been a cloud over the future of EU citizens, and their horizons have been limited. Of course, the horizons of young people in this country have been limited too, with curbs put on where their life and their work may take them in the future.
Overnight on 30 June, many people previously living legally here and in Northern Ireland found themselves more vulnerable to the hostile environment. I proudly represent the most diverse constituency in Northern Ireland, and my team and I have been helping constituents navigate the new system. We have experienced at first hand their difficulties, knowing the culture of “no” that pervades in the Home Office—a presumption of guilt and unsuitability, and a disregard for people and the emotional consequences of living a life in limbo.
The immigration frameworks that the UK is introducing devolve the hostile environment to the community. Despite assurances that EU nationals and their family members would not be required to provide evidence of their status in order to access services, unlawful checks and discrimination are a reality. We know of cases where GP practices, landlords, employers and social security providers have requested share codes and additional documentation. Public servants, in all their fields, have become immigration officials, and a chilling inevitably follows that. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify the legal viability and the legal rights of those citizens, and to reiterate that they are legal and welcome and valued here.
I have been told by the Home Office that there is no service standard, so there is no indication of how long people might wait for a decision on their case, and, as others have outlined, many struggle to access the helpline. As well as taking steps to rectify that, will the Minister address the widespread calls for a physical record or manifestation, so that people do not have to share screen- grabs, with all the data protection issues that that raises?
The overall Brexit immigration policy delivers a further blow to our society and economy. Northern Ireland traditionally has had net neutral immigration. To the extent that we have had anything approaching an immigration problem, it has been an issue of young people leaving our shores and not coming back. In fact, over the last decades, EU workers have helped us to address those problems. They have brought hard work and have brought diversity and vitality, as generations of people from the island I live in have done to other countries over many years.
EU migrant workers have staffed core economic activities, such as agrifood, manufacturing, tourism and hospitality, and certainly health and social care. In 2016, 7% of employees were EEA nationals, making Northern Ireland,  outside London, the region with the highest level of labour migration from EEA countries. According to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, that number has fallen by 26% since the referendum. A quarter of those workers—our colleagues and our neighbours—upped sticks and left rather than deal with the hostility that was created by a campaign that framed them as the cause of all our problems.
Members will know that the pandemic has absolutely nailed the lie that wages are synonymous with the skill or value of a worker. An immigration framework should not use salary level as the primary determinant of a person’s ability to work in the UK, especially when the same Government do little to address chronic low pay. With lower wages than the UK average, the points-based threshold of £25,600 is particularly ill-suited to Northern Ireland. Fewer than a third of migrant workers are currently able to meet that threshold. I would love to believe that it will drive up wages for local workers or EEA workers, but I not believe that was in the hearts and minds of the system’s architects.
While the protocol’s measures against a hard land border for goods have mitigated some aspects of Brexit, the unfit-for-purpose immigration rule is an example of the creeping borderism that Brexit is bringing to the island of Ireland. A Spanish backpacker can no longer make their way along the Wild Atlantic way from Cork all the way up to Belfast by working in bars. An Estonian software engineer can no longer seamlessly transfer from the Dublin office to the Belfast office. Why would someone from the EU come to work in Derry when 10 minutes over the border in Donegal they can do so with no bureaucracy or paperwork? Why would a multinational company choose a location in Newry when there is less cost and less red tape a few miles down the road in Dundalk?
Northern Ireland’s only saving grace in the competition for foreign direct investment is that the protocol offers companies the unique and alternative proposition of access to both markets and it is ironic that—in addition to the hostility of these immigration frameworks—the Government seem determined to spaff that up against the wall. That is why the people of Northern Ireland have rejected this approach for the last five years.

Wera Hobhouse: Nobody who campaigned to leave the EU will have considered the human cost of Brexit and, despite many heartbreaking stories, the Tory Government still do not. EU citizens have been treated appallingly, and their hardship continues. Many find themselves in legal limbo and fear that their status will become unlawful. For those who moved to the UK—decades ago in some cases—and have lived, studied or worked here and have fallen in love or started a family here, this country has become their home, but the future is uncertain for all those who have not become British citizens.
For those with pre-settled status, the situation is even worse. The Government must show that they are serious about the rights of EU citizens and, at the very least, provide them with physical proof of status to prevent discrimination. Many EU citizens, including constituents in Bath, are struggling with the untried, untested digital-only status, and 89% have expressed unhappiness about a lack of physical proof. It is incomprehensible that the Government are still not listening to them.
EU citizens seem no longer to be of any interest to this Tory Government. It is hostile Britain par excellence. Each time an EU citizen returns to their adopted home, they cannot be certain that they will be allowed in. Such fears are not unfounded. Here is another example why digital-only proof does not work. Research from the Residential Landlords Association found that 20% of landlords were less likely to consider letting their property to an EU or EEA national. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that, in 115 mystery shopping inquiries, only three landlords explicitly said that they were willing to conduct an online check; 85% did not even respond. People are required to prove their immigration status throughout their lives. They could be seeking a new job, finding a place to live, opening a bank account, getting treatment at a hospital or returning home from a holiday abroad. The big promises about a simple proof of the right to be here have been shamelessly broken. The EU has mandated all member states to issue British citizens a uniform physical residence document; the UK must reciprocate.
As a European migrant, I feel the pain and sadness of all such EU citizens that Britain—a country that we once admired and chose as our home—has turned into a country of small-minded insularity. I ask the Government once more to show more sense and compassion towards EU citizens. Economies and societies are about people. For decades, the UK has welcomed and nurtured those who came. The country was a good example of an open, tolerant society and has seen the benefits of being modern and diverse. The pendulum is swinging the other way, not by accident but by political design. Britain continues to be geographically, historically and economically part of the European world. Europe is a continent with few barriers between countries, where academic, business and private life is shared across non-existent borders. The UK is no longer part of this open Europe. Those with choices, those with skills and qualifications, the best and especially the young—those the Government want to attract—have already moved or will move and not return. This is the tragedy of my adopted country.

Margaret Ferrier: Five years after the Brexit poll and the initiation of the article 50 process, we are still discussing the fate of millions of EU nationals across the UK, including many of my constituents. The persisting uncertainty in the lives of many EU nationals across the UK is causing distress and worry.
I welcome the fact that more than 6 million applications have already been processed, and it is reassuring that the Minister has confirmed that none of the cases currently being processed will be subject to immigration enforcement, and that the EU nationals concerned will have their rights legally protected.
However, there remain many questions on the rights of those who missed the deadline, which could have disastrous consequences for vulnerable EU nationals in the UK, such as those fleeing domestic abuse. If the deadline for settled status is missed and a late application is made, their ability to access benefits and homelessness assistance will be halted until they receive a successful grant of status. That risk is not a hypothetical scenario but a reality.
According to Refuge, the domestic abuse charity, reports from its frontline services indicate that many domestic abuse survivors who come from EU countries remain unaware that they need to make an application to the scheme, and that a separate application needs to be made on behalf of their dependants. Migrant survivors of domestic abuse who face forms of precarity will be comforted to know that the Home Office pays attention to that when considering their status.
EU nationals who experience domestic abuse have often found it difficult to provide the necessary documentation for their application, with many reporting that the documentation has been destroyed by an abusive partner. Indeed, Refuge even reports that some of its clients have been told by their abusers that, due to Brexit, they can no longer contact the police or the health services, risking deportation if they take such steps.
Although it is reassuring that the Home Office has agreed to accept late applications in cases where an individual has reasonable grounds, and that experience of domestic abuse will be considered to be such reasonable grounds, it would be helpful if the Minister would detail whether and how the Home Office will ensure flexibility in what can be considered to be acceptable evidence for a late application on those grounds.
It is also noteworthy that guidance for late applicants to the settlement scheme considers serious medical conditions or significant medical treatment that prevents someone from being able to complete an application to be a reasonable ground. This is, of course, welcome, but it would be useful to know whether it extends to mental health issues. Where someone with depression is unable to perform day-to-day tasks, would that fall within the scope of the clause?
For many years now, EU nationals have been subjected to a state of permanent limbo, anxiety and uncertainty about their future, and I hope the Minister will consider these modest steps to help our EU national friends and neighbours remain here, where they belong.

Anne McLaughlin: I do not welcome this debate, as it should not have been necessary. That said, there have been some very interesting contributions. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for being all over this subject, as he always is. I also thank the3million for its ongoing support and campaigning for all those who are still worried.
My office is always busy with casework, but in recent months it has been snowed under with people who have real difficulties with the EU settlement scheme. They have gone above and beyond the call of duty, working all sorts of hours, so I put on record my thanks to them.
I do not think I have any new questions, because I have asked them all before—I have just had difficulty getting an answer other than, “It’ll be all right on the night.” I do want to ask about late applications. I know that the Minister is always happy to give the example he gave today of the five-year-old child in care who in 13 years’ time discovers that their status was never resolved, and to say that that is of course a good reason for a late application. That is great, but I would really like to hear other examples because—he will forgive me for saying so—that is quite an obvious one. Who would not overlook a late application in that instance?
We on the SNP Benches would feel more comforted if the Minister elaborated on who else could make a late application and in what circumstances. He said something today about people who do not have the mental capacity to apply, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) talked about people in coercive relationships, but could we get a bit of detail? Are we are talking about people in domestic abuse situations? Anyone who has been trafficked or bereaved or who is homeless? Anyone experiencing mental or physical ill health or an addiction? And can we talk about what is likely to happen in the immediate future, rather than 13 years hence? It is not likely that anyone around today will be still around then to be held accountable—I do not mean they will not be alive, just that they will not be here to be questioned.
I am going to hazard a guess that the Government are not that bothered about the toll this is taking on individuals—it is not all guesswork, because I have a fair bit of evidence about how we treat all categories of migrants. But if the Government do not care about the people involved, they surely must care about the economy. Scottish Government analysis shows a decline in the number of EU nationals working in Scotland, and that is hitting industries such as agriculture and hospitality hard. As others have said, that is happening not just in Scotland but across the UK. I know that this Government do not listen to the Scottish Government, so will they listen to the National Farmers Union, whose figures show that last year only 11% of seasonal workers were UK residents? That was despite the big Pick for Britain campaign. Farmers need workers but are struggling to get them. How would the Minister do his job if he could not get support staff?
Will the Government listen to the owner of Wetherspoons, Tim Martin? I never expected to refer to him to make any point in this place but, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) said, even the arch Brexiteer himself is now lamenting the fact that he cannot get the staff he needs and is calling for a special dispensation for his industry. If he of all people is saying that, we know what a terrible impact Brexit must be having in terms of people leaving, and the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) spoke about why. If on top of that we have EU nationals who are living here and entitled and willing to work, but who are unable to prove it quickly or easily and are therefore unable to work, what does that do to the availability of labour and to the economy?
I will not repeat the arguments about how important the requirement for physical evidence is, because my colleagues have covered that. All I will say is that there is absolutely no reason to require it. If the Government can do it to prove that people have been vaccinated, they can do it for EU citizens, if they want to.
So we have lengthy delays; people who missed the deadline; no physical evidence of the right to remain; online systems that are unable to cope; employers scared to employ; and people feeling unwanted and heading off. Many of my colleagues have today echoed the calls of Jenny Gilruth, the Scottish Government Minister for Europe, for the deadline to be extended, but that is not our preference. As has been said, our preference is for a declaratory system and for the settlement scheme to be scrapped. We are not asking the Government to do something fanciful: 14 countries in Europe—including  Spain, Germany, Portugal and Italy—automatically granted residency status to UK nationals living in those countries. That is the thing we promised but did not do. The immigrants we sent to those EU countries were treated an awful lot better than we are treating people from those countries. But then, our people are never immigrants, are they? They are expats and we expect them to be treated with respect. I agree, but respect cuts both ways, and making people jump through hoops is not respectful.
There is no doubt about it: this is a sore one for those of us in the SNP. Nothing—I mean nothing—throws light on exactly what is wrong with this Union more than the Brexit vote. It is a tale of two countries with completely diverging views on migration, or at least on inward migration. The latter, Scotland, votes 62% to stay in Europe, but because the former is bigger, it gets the final say, and my country is dragged out of the EU completely against its will. Now, my country is supposed to stand by and watch while this Government break the promises of the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister who, as we have heard, signed the pledge that said that
“EU citizens will automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK”.
That pledge was a lie, because the two people who signed it are the very two who could have made it happen, and still could. It does not matter what the Minister says—that cannot be denied. The people of Scotland did not fall for that lie. We voted against it, but still we are expected to stand by and watch our family, friends, neighbours and colleagues go through hell, waiting months, and not knowing whether they can stay or not. We will not stand by much longer.
We will not be party to treating people that way. We will not put up with watching whole sectors of Scotland’s economy fail because they cannot get the workers that they need, because those workers cannot prove their right to be here, because we are not allowed to invite them to our country or because they just do not want to be somewhere they do not feel welcome any more. None of that is in our name, and if Government Members mean what they have been saying throughout the debate— I am tired of hearing it—they should lobby the Prime Minister. They should tell him to make up for the democratic deficit that is Brexit and do the only democratic thing that he can do when it comes to Scotland: give us our section 30 order so that we can have a referendum on independence.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said that the debate should be about people. Independence is about people, and I am in no doubt that the people of Scotland will tell this place that none of this—not Brexit, the EU settlement scheme or the hostile environment—is in our name. They will know that the only way to be able to create the kind of country that reflects who we are is to take control of our own affairs by voting yes to independence.

Iain Stewart: It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing it. Before I pick up on some of the points that have been raised, I send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire). I hope he  makes a full recovery from his condition. I also express my concern about what my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) told the House about the attack on his constituency office, which is not something that any of us should have to endure.
I absolutely agree that language is important in this debate, and I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who reminded us that this is about people. Some sensible questions have been posed, and I will endeavour over the next seven minutes or so to respond to as many as I can—apologies if I am unable to reference everyone—and to do so in the spirit in which they have been raised.
I agree with the point that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), made—that we welcome and cherish the contributions that our friends, neighbours, colleagues and partners from other EU countries have made to our constituencies and to the country as a whole.
I also put on the record that I could not disagree more with the point that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) made—that Scotland’s and England’s views on immigration are somehow divergent. I absolutely refute that. I represent a very diverse constituency, with constituents from all parts of the world. To declare an interest, my partner is a Malaysian national, so I have every good reason to cherish immigrants to this country and the contribution that they make. I will not have this painting of Britain outside the EU as some insular place, hostile to immigration. I reference our bold and generous offer to British nationals in Hong Kong as evidence of our approach.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) said—I hope I picked her up correctly—I want to emphasise that Home Office caseworkers’ priority is to look for reasons to grant status, not to find reasons not to, and refusals are a last resort. Where someone has not provided the necessary evidence, Home Office caseworkers will contact them to help them to provide the evidence required, and will exercise discretion in their favour, where appropriate, to minimise administrative burdens.
I assure the House that all options will be exhausted before refusing someone’s application. Those who have been refused but are now able to provide evidence to confirm their eligibility can simply apply to the scheme again, free of charge, and there is a range of support available online, and by email and telephone, for those who have questions or need help in applying. At this point, I wish to acknowledge the hard work that civil servants and employers have done to help applicants gain their status—a point powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie)—and I thank them for that. It is also important to reinforce the message, which several Members raised during the debate, that those who applied before the deadline but have not yet had their response have their rights enshrined in law until the decision is made. We need to send that important message out from the House tonight.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) raised an important point about the support available to vulnerable and hard-to-reach groups, including adults and children in care settings. The Home Office has awarded £21.5 million to 72 organisations across the  UK to provide face-to-face appointments and support online, over the telephone or by email to help vulnerable people apply. That work continues to be funded, and we are continuing to reach out to those vulnerable groups to make sure we capture everyone we can. Further assistance is available from the Home Office’s settlement resolution centre, which is open seven days a week for telephone and email inquiries.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), in replying to the debate, asked a perfectly fair question about other examples of what might be deemed a “reasonable ground” for a late application. I am happy to tell her that the Home Office has published a non-exhaustive list of 17 pages on its website, giving those reasons, with one being where someone is a victim of modern slavery or is in abusive relationship. If she needs more information on that, I am sure my colleagues in the Home Office would be happy to supply that to her.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who moved the motion, and the hon. Members for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), raised the need for EU citizens to apply for status in the first instance. The Government’s view is that the constitution of the system, in the form of the settlement scheme, is the best way to deliver our commitment to European economic areas citizens who have made the UK their home—in fact, it is the best way to prevent another Windrush-type situation from happening. It provides citizens and their family members with clarity about what they need to apply for and by when, and about the secure evidence of their status that they need. It is also ensures that service providers such as employers and landlords have a way of confirming who has what status. On the other hand, a declaratory system could lead to a situation such as Windrush where EU nationals do not have sufficient evidence to prove their status and entitlements in the UK.

Stuart McDonald: rose—

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way, as I have two minutes left before the conclusion of the debate. As I was saying, that system could also result in third parties making incorrect or inconsistent decisions on someone’s status—we do not want to allow that to happen.
Finally, let me touch on the issue of physical documentation. We do consider digital evidence of immigration status to be secure, and it can be accessed anywhere and in real time. It cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with as a physical document can. It does put individuals in control of their own data; they have direct access to information held by the Home Office about their status. In line with the principles of data minimisation, we will also be able to share only the information required by a checker, rather than all the information held on a physical card.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) raised points about what happens where someone does not have the digital passport as they arrive in the UK. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) tells me that that is not required, and the presentation of their passport will be sufficient to give all the information they need to.
In the last few seconds of this debate, let me say that we have made it clear throughout that we want those who are eligible for the EU settlement scheme to stay, and we welcome the fact that so many of them want to do so. They have made an enormous contribution to this country and will continue to do so.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 365.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Lindsay Hoyle: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Highways

That the draft Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, which were laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.

Financial Services and Markets

That the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 14 June, be approved.—(David Duguid.)
Question agreed to.

Petitions

Petition - Post Box in Stoke Village

Luke Pollard: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the people I represent in Stoke Village in Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. Stoke Village is a vibrant community, and what every vibrant community needs is a post box, but it has been removed by Royal Mail. In the past year of lockdown, a written note or a birthday card—something to have and to hold—from the people we love has meant so much more. I hope Royal Mail takes note of this petition and restores the post box to Stoke Village as soon as possible.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign for a new post box in Stoke Village and call on the Royal Mail to install it without delay.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Stoke and surrounding communities in Plymouth,
Declares that Stoke village is a vibrant shopping centre and the heart of the local community but that the loss of its post box is detrimental to the local shops and community;  and further that the Royal Mail should restore its post box in Stoke Village as soon as possible.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to support the campaign for a new post box in Stoke Village and call on the Royal Mail to install it without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002673]

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to let the hon. Gentleman know that I got one replaced at Charnock Richard after it was removed, so let us hope Royal Mail is listening to him.

Petition - Sprint Route and Car Park

Valerie Vaz: Can I start by wishing the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) a speedy recovery? He is a great person and a great parliamentarian.
My petition is about the Sprint route car park, and it is from the residents of Walsall South.
The petition declares:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Transport for West Midlands should withdraw its proposal to build a 300-space Park and Ride car park on land adjacent to the Bell Inn, Birmingham Road; further that the proposed location of the car park is green belt land, which contravenes the National Planning Policy Framework and Walsall MBC’s Site Allocation Document; further that there was no consultation with local residents before this decision was made by Transport for West Midlands and that four mature trees have now been removed along Birmingham Road as part of this project, also without any consultation; further that no consultation was carried out by Walsall MBC before it approved an Environmental Impact Assessment Screening option for this site, removing important environmental safeguards by exempting the proposals from a full Environmental Impact Assessment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that Transport for West Midlands withdraws its application to build a car park on green belt land.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002674]

Wealden Railway Stations: Disability Access

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David Duguid.)

Nusrat Ghani: The whole country and this House seem to be distracted, Mr Speaker, but I hope you agree with me that there is nothing more important than this debate on the matter of disability access at Crowborough, Eridge, Uckfield, Frant and Wadhurst train stations in my constituency of Wealden. Train travel is a vital form of transport for Wealden residents, and securing improvements to rail services and the stations in Wealden remains one of my priorities.
Having served as a Transport Minister, I was once responsible for delivering the groundbreaking accessibility strategy called the inclusive transport strategy to ensure that public transport was more inclusive and better accessible for those with disabilities. It was actually the world’s first strategy to align itself with the United Nations accessibility goals, and it paved the way for equal access for disabled people on all transport networks. It promotes provisions such as step-free access, changing facilities at motorway service stations and the enhanced passenger assistance service.
While building this strategy, I worked with many disability groups, service providers and bodies that take care of the infrastructure to address the barriers on transport networks for those with visible and invisible disabilities. As I was then, so I am today grateful for their help in preparing this speech. I am grateful in particular to Leonard Cheshire and its paper entitled “Get on Board 2020: Making the economic case for ‘levelling up’ inclusive transport”. I hope the Minister can reference it in this remarks. I am also grateful, of course, to Transport for All and particularly Mr Alan Benson.
Today, however, I want to focus on the rail network and stations in my constituency of Wealden. Some 41% of rail stations in Britain are not step-free, and in the south-east this rises to 52%—and of course Wealden is nestled in East Sussex—but we have had some success, especially at Eridge and Crowborough stations, thanks to our Conservative Government. I am grateful for  the funds that I have already secured for fantastic accessibility upgrades to our local stations. As a part of the Access for All fund, both Eridge and Crowborough stations are currently undergoing multi-million-pound refurbishments to ensure step-free access. The staircase and bridge at Eridge station were removed last year and are being replaced a new, modern footbridge. A new lift shaft is being constructed and automatic doors will also be installed. Similar construction is under way at Crowborough station.
I am proud to have been part of the upgrades for both Eridge and Crowborough. But there is a tiny issue with Eridge, which was brought to my attention by Tim Barkley, the chair of the Southeast Communities Rail Partnership community interest group. Apparently, GTR is making volunteers park at a distance from Eridge station because blue badge parking is not being issued there. That is an issue: we need to make sure that blue badge parking at the station is close to the lift and that volunteers can access the station as the refurb carries on.
I now want to touch on improvements at Wadhurst and Frant stations. I am pleased that, working with Guide Dogs UK, we have been able to secure safety improvements at Wadhurst and Frant station platforms for visually impaired commuters. The warning tactile and painted contrasting lines on station platforms will help orientation and safety. It is incredibly important that we focus on both visible and invisible disabilities when it comes to making stations accessible.
I am incredibly pleased with the Guide Dogs UK campaign, which has also focused on what Network Rail can do to support people with visual impairment. Mr Alan Benson from Transport for All has raised an issue with me. Apparently, tactile paving is missing or incomplete across most of the network; that was raised particularly following the unfortunate death at Eden Park station. I hope that the Minister can confirm that Network Rail will be encouraged to prioritise the installation of tactile pavements, so that those with visual impairments can feel safe too.
I would, of course, also like to see step-free access at Wadhurst and Frant; I am hoping that the Minister can make a nod in a positive direction so that when we put in an application for funding, we will also be successful there.
I now draw the Minister’s attention to the Uckfield line, which causes the most amount of tension for my constituents. It used to be called “the misery line” and for quite some time we have been trying to get it electrified and get a depot at Crowborough; at the moment the line is a real dinosaur. It would be fantastic if we could have an upgrade. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Southern Rail, I have raised this matter repeatedly with the Department, the Minister and his predecessors. It would be fantastic if the Minister could make reference to that at the Dispatch Box or write to me to say if the campaign for an upgrade to the Uckfield line will be fruitful.
I turn quickly to the Passenger Assistance app, one of the most important parts of the inclusive transport strategy; we were very excited at its launch a few months ago. It is incredibly important for people setting off on their journeys to have an integrated service on their phones to make sure that any breakdown can be communicated effectively.
Any new app is going to have a few problems, but some particular ones were brought to my attention by Mr Alan Benson. Even though the app can offer some real potential, there is no way to process or co-ordinate buying a ticket, booking a wheelchair space and getting assistance in one place. It can take over an hour to get the app to function. Could that be resolved? The biggest issue is that operators need to adopt the app so that we can ensure that all journeys are integrated and all information is in one place. The lack of accurate information is always going to be a problem when people with disabilities try to use an app to get across the country using multiple forms of transport. It would be fantastic if the Minister explained whether there is a way to resolve the app so that it can become even more useful than it is at the moment.
Finally, three years on from the publication of the inclusive transport strategy, will the Minister confirm that it is meeting all the targets to ensure that the rail  network in particular can be accessible for all? There are some concerns that the Access for All funding may fall short due to budget cuts or because of covid pressure. We would not want to see that at all. I also invite the Minister to visit my constituency of Wealden; he may want to go to Frant or Wadhurst stations, with their tactile paving, or to Eridge and Crowborough stations, with their step free access. Of course, I would love it if the Minister could write to me about the electrification of the Uckfield line.
Finally, I want to leave the Minister with one thought from Leonard Cheshire’s recent report. It is asking for the inclusive transport strategy to be legislated for, so that it becomes law and we do not lose track of the time- table we are setting ourselves. It is fantastic to know from its report, “Get On Board 2020”, that investing between 1% and 3% of the total transport capital between now and 2030 in a fully step-free rail network would potentially enable 51,000 disabled people into work, and could boost our economic output by £1.3 billion. Making our railway stations accessible not only helps disabled passengers and customers, but whole communities. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Speaker. Alas, my England top that we were debating on Twitter remains safely in my office for at least the next eight minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on having secured this debate on the important subject of accessibility to the rail network—possibly the second most important televisual event happening this evening.

Nusrat Ghani: Surely the first.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My hon. Friend was, of course, responsible for accessibility in her time as Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department for Transport, and I thank her for her contributions and successes over that period. It is a subject that I take incredibly seriously; however, she will also be aware that I am a qualified and active football referee, just about to enter my 40th season in the middle, and an interesting and important game of association football commences shortly. I might just stick in the odd pun, because I am keen to kick off this debate, but I assure her that delivering a slightly light-hearted speech on this matter does not mean that I do not take it extremely seriously.

Lindsay Hoyle: The Minister may be aware that we can also issue yellow cards from the Chair.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I was hoping that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) would be here, so that he could Winks at me and then I could happily let him Calvert-Lewin.
I recognise how important it is for my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden’s constituents to have access to the railway. It is an important part of all of our lives, whether it is used to see family and friends, to go about our daily lives, or perhaps to head to Wembley to watch Sancho, Foden and Pickford. Heading out to work is an important journey, as indeed is coming home: “It’s coming home” is one of the most important journeys there is. Delivering a transport system that is accessible  to all is a must, not just a Rice-to-have, and it is of great importance to me and my hon. Friend. I know that she is aware of, and fully committed to, the Department for Transport’s inclusive transport strategy, published in 2018, and that she recognises it as evidence of the Government’s commitment to taking action to safeguard and promote the rights of all disabled passengers.
By 2030, we want disabled people to have the same access to transport as anyone else, and if physical infrastructure remains a barrier—or a wall—then assistance must play a role in guarantee-Ings those rights. An accessible transport network is central to the Government’s wider ambition of building a society that works for all. Regardless of the nature of a person’s disability, they should have the same access to transport and the same opportunity to travel as everyone else. No one should have to sacrifice—or Saka-rifice—their ability to use our public transport system.
Unfortunately, though, many of our stations date from the Victorian era, and their infrastructure is not fit for purpose for too many people. Some stations have very little space for us to carry out improvements: one could say that the Victorians, in some ways, Henderson. Those 19th-century stations were not built with the needs of 21st-century passengers in mind, which has left us with the huge task of opening up a rail network to disabled passengers that is not fit for it. Although 75% of all journeys are through step-free stations, only about a fifth of the stations have proper step-free access, as my hon. Friend detailed in her speech, into the station and between each platform. So we are not in a Dier place but we must aim higher—much, much Maguire indeed.
Clearly, accessible stations make a huge difference to people’s journey experience, not only to people with reduced mobility but to those carrying heavy luggage or those with pushchairs, which is why we have continued the Access for All programme, and the inclusive transport strategy included a commitment to extend our Access for All programme across control period 6 between 2019 and 2024, with an additional £350 million Sterling of funding from the public purse. This new funding builds on the previous success of the programme, which was launched as a 10-year programme in 2006, and has so far included step-free routes at over 200 stations, and 1,500 stations have benefited from smaller-scale access improvements.
I am committed to ensuring that Network Rail speeds up the planning and delivery of tactile paving across the network. Tactile paving means that people with buggies and people with sight issues can feel by foot or by Kane when they are approaching the platform edge. The bumps underfoot almost feel like Stones and people can move around the platforms more confidently in a Shaw-footed fashion. We want to be in a place where every passenger can feel like a confident Walker at a station with there being no Trippier hazards. It is right that I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role she played. What she did was a great Phillips for the accessibility cause and we are now reaping the benefits of her work.
I turn to the stations in Wealden. As my hon. Friend will know, Crowborough is more famous currently for being chanted by England fans in the song, “Sweet Crowborough Line”, but Crowborough and Eridge stations were both nominated for Access for All funding and will receive funding to create accessible step-free routes via the Southgate, with works due to be completed by 2024 at the latest.
We are also pressing the industry to comply with its various legal requirements, and the Office of Road and Rail recently consulted on accessible travel policy guidance. The revised guidance will include proposals that will strengthen provisions put in place that ensure that disabled people can use our rail network, and I have encouraged the ORR to take enforcement action against train and station operators who are found not to be meeting their accessibility options. Let us hope there is no need for penalties.
In May, we published our White Paper—the Williams-Shapps plan for rail—the biggest shake-up of the network seen in three decades. We will be bringing the railway together under a single national leadership of a new public body, Great British Railways, with one overwhelming aim to deliver for passengers. This reinforces the Government’s commitment on accessibility, too. Indeed, accessibility is threaded through the White Paper, like a pass from Jack Grealishweaving through the Danish defence to Marcus Rashford. Great British Railways will also own and be responsible for the entire passenger offer and will put accessibility at the core of its decision making. Our vision is that accessibility will become an integral part of the passenger offer for all.
I hope that I have, in the short time I have had available, demonstrated that this Government are committed to improving access at stations for disabled passengers, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Like her, we think that these problems have been allowed to Mount up for too long. Through specific projects such as Access for All and improvements delivered as part of our wider commitment to improving the rail network, we are doing our bit gradually, and I would like to speed up. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that, in the spending review, I will be putting in a healthy bid for the continuation of the Access for All programme.
I guess that I shall finish because I do not want to test the patience of the House staff, whom I thank for being here tonight. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and I wish good luck to England. I thank my hon. Friend for the contribution that she has made and I very much do look forward to visiting her constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: At least the Member has the good news. Let us hope that England do win tonight—that is the news that I want to put out there. Come on, England. Let us get there.
Question up and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
  Mr William Wragg


  Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
  Ben Everitt


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Stuart Andrew


  Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Ben Lake


  Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Howell (Henley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
  Neale Hanvey


  Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West)
  Owen Thompson


  Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jill Mortimer (Hartlepool) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) ( LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Ben Lake


  Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
  Ian Paisley


  Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Owen Thompson


  Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore